-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Neil Mosafi wrote: > I think I agree with you Peter, having them as a separate library doesn't > make too much sense. You could perhaps use a separate namespace or > something? > > Beyond reading the mailing lists, I've not been following VOS a huge amount > recently. So to answer the question I guess you just have to ask if it is > possible to write a useful VOS application that would not use the property > metaobject?
Yes, it is. But all current apps happen to use it and anything in the future that integrates with existing apps will. But if you want to create a completely new, seperate, app, you might not need to use it. It's like having a programming language that has objects and method calls (messages) but no real variables (other than object instances). To make a variable, you create a kind of object that stores data. This is how some programming languages work like Smalltalk, for example, I think, everything is an object. You could re-implement something that does the same job as Property, or just avoid it completely by building your application out of objects that pass more specific messages about things. But that said, I don't think having too many libraries is a problem. (Though libvosapp is now a pretty trivial library.) Maybe make libvosessentials that has property, vosapp, etc. if it really is that important that the libraries be reduced. Reed -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDpaceFK83gN8ItOQRAhfwAJ9nugaqbIy+gQ0KarLRKS+60NFzpwCdENzS KLwtgmKcrbC+7sgXtLq7VHE= =jNRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
