On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:08:14AM +0100, Benjamin Wolsey wrote: > > I was thinking these days that the time may have come to drop requirement > > of this 2-steps start. > > Sounds good to me. I think the only difference to my proposed startup > design would be that everything is passed to createMovie() and that the > MovieRun always has a movie_root (which is a much better guarantee).
I'd try to think about different names. I don't like the word "Movie" above. I don't think you're creating a movie. Most probably you're setting up a stage. You're renting a theater to let the show happen. Not even knowing the stage size in advance, btw. I wonder if just instantiating a movie_root would do that already. In that case the factory you're suggesting would pretty much be a movie_rootFactory (yes, it's time to rename movie_root ;P) > But I'm currently not sure what implications it would have for users or > what extra requirements it would place on existing classes. Eh.. me neither, but I belive it'd be worth giving it a try to avoid designing a whole new abstraction to fight with dragons that might be dead already. --strk; () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer /\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
