Re: [Gnash-dev] File renaming

[Benjamin Wolsey]

>   Well, all we've been doing is moving things to the directories where
> they exist in the AS3. Why "easier to find" ? We can leave some classes
> in libcore or libasobjs, but I thought they'd be easier to find if the
> class definitions lived in the same subdirectory tree as the test cases
> and the spec. If you have classes you'd like to see not migrated, let us
> know.
> 

I think generally that the inheritance structure is more useful and
meaningful than the package structure. Most classes inherit directly
from Object, but some inherit from DisplayObject. The latter need
special support in libcore, and they are all related.

As I said, it seems okay for the AS interface of these classes to be
moved to the new directory structure, but not the actual classes
(TextField, Shape, MorphShape, MovieClip, Button/SimpleButton) etc. They
are currently all in libcore and do not have "_as" as a suffix, so it is
easy to see the ones I mean.

The reason I think the main classes should be there is that organizing a
codebase because of something Adobe did for flashcoders, not round the
way it actually works, isn't helpful for coding.

>   That was the idea, to use the new AS3 names, but to have them work
> under the old AS2 names. Documentation is coming, we've had a problem
> with accessing the wiki. The documentation will include what versions
> each class was in, and differences between AS2 and AS3.
> http://wiki.gnashdev.org/AS_Migration
> 
I'm not so bothered about the wiki (though of course it's good to do it
there), but about documentation in the class headers, which is what most
people look at.

--
Yes, YouTube does work in Gnash
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

Benjamin Wolsey, Software Developer - http://benjaminwolsey.de

signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil