On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:17:17 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > fair enough. are co-ords relative to object or canvas-global? i think we > > possible needs to make this object-relative? > > > > > > Object relative, ie. rel to obj's coord sys. - that works best for > evas' semantics of move, > resize of objs, and makes it easier to use as a retained-mode canvas. sounds good. > If the grad obj becomes 'bound' as a fill or stroke texture obj of > another (vgfx) obj, then the > fill geometry is taken rel to the textured obj coords. ok. sounds good. > In part, to allow for odd sized fills.. make it fit an odd sized > rect for example. hmmm. ok. > > hmm - ok, but these are very much linked. and addressing of vgfx needs to > > also address all the usual gradients used in vgfx (eg svg). :) but overall > > this seems to make sense above. > > > > Exactly. The 'downside' is that it breaks current evas api. But > better now while still > pre-alpha. Or, if it's decided best for it to be released first, then it > would have to wait > for a subsequent api-breaking new version. sure. this is why i'm wondering.. maybe - we just make a new class of vgfx object(s)? this means no break now... or in future... if we break now - it means still a lot of work to adapt to the breaks. :) -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
