On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:12:16 +1000 David Seikel <[email protected]> said:
and that still holds - the edje_cc thing is a stage of the file format's lifecycle. there was no "gimp" for edje. edje_cc + edc filled that need. it is intended as a destination format. simply saying "but we will avoid problems in breaking the format if we just avoid using it and always compile from edc's" is a recipe for disaster and simply encourages us not to maintain a workable stable format. until 1.0.0 we have the luxury to break the format and do this kind of thing as we are working on getting things settled in for the long long long haul - and 1.0 is the start of that long haul. if the attitude is "oh we should just use edc's so we can break the format easily in the future"... then that's precisely the WRONG attitude to have. it simply guarantees edje 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc. will come around fast and we will annoy people in forcing their files to become obsolete quickly driving users, developers and themers away. edc->edj compilation is really only used for things that actually change and are worked on - eg the default theme for e, elementary etc. this is where the source changes often enough to want it under revision control. the ultimate goal is to have tools like editje do everything. edc will become some "hackers tool" that you can use, if you want, to automate generation of edje files or use to inspect their cores in gory detail and then process that maybe via scripts. but as an ultimate "desired tool that designers actually use" -- it will be hidden and not used. designers dont want to nor should they have to look at or know edc in the end. they should work in terms that are familiar to them and their train of thought. that is visual content, visual "hooks and bindings". only some parts of edje files will remain text - script for example. (last i checked editje wasn't all the way there yet in handling script sections?). > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:56:03 -0400 Christopher Michael > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 08/09/2010 01:49 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > > If I remember correctly there are some edj (i.e already compiled > > > edc's) in svn. > > > Don't forget to update them, or better yet, create a Makefile for > > > them and start shipping only edc's. > > > > > That would be the preferred way (edc), so that future things like > > that do not require too much manual updating...the edj files can just > > be remade during the build process. > > I have always insisted that we store edc source files in SVN and not > edj files. This is yet one more good reason to. Raster said that edj > is an image format like PNG, but PNG is not compiled from source, so > that argument is not a good one. edj files are compiled from source, > so we should ALWAYS put the source in SVN and suitable makefiles to > compile them. > > -- > A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants > coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
