Martin Spott wrote: > An outsider's view: Wouldn't it make sense to roll all these nifty > hacks into PLIB so everyone can make use of them or is PLIB too > restricted to make this a realistic vision ?
This is more of a design theory issue, but in general "nifty hacks" like this are *not* something that belong in utility libraries. The whole point of having Plib/PW (or SDL, or anything else) is that they isolate the user from the complexity of the underlying platforms. That simplicity gets broken when you have to worry about all the brain damage that other people have introduced to the library over its lifespan. To some extent, SDL has this disease (it wants to #define main(), for goodness sake!); the library is much larger and less orthogonal than it could be. In isolation, a single project can make the decision as to whether an odd or non-portable hack is worthwhile or not. But we don't want to be subjected to everyone else's tricks, and quite frankly other plib users aren't likely to be interested in our tweaks either. Gene Buckle wrote: > From what I've hread about this kind of think in the past, patches > submitted to PLib from FlightGear have been totally ignored. Well, they went through a quiet period for a while. But things have improved markedly over the past few months. The real problem wasn't really that they were ignoring patches, it was that "significant" changes (the vertex splitting stuff that I did, for example) required code review and integration work from the core team, and no one had time to do that. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
