On Jul 10, 2006, at 5:56 AM, Henry Minsky wrote: > > > I don't quite understand this logic; it seems like having the AVM2 > kernel use the class system > doesn't mean that the AVM3 kernel must use it... > > > Rewriting the lzloader stuff without the class system would be a > an amount of work that I'm > not convinced it is worth doing unless there is a more immediate need. > > > With respect to what Max said, I was planning on just wrapping the > new HTTP Loader API > around the existing swf loader stuff, and not try to poke inside > that old code too much if I could avoid it. For DHTML and AVM3, we > need to write new code so that is a good place to start with the > new API. In other words, I am hoping to get away with > keeping my hands out of the internals of the current swf loader > code as much as possible, given how touchy it is... >
Let me clarify that I meant the kernel APIs should be as generic as possible, not the kernel implementations. If it is expedient/ appropriate to use the class model internally in a kernel implementation, then I think that's fine. (I actually think it's only fine as an intermediate step, but that's another conversation we don't have to have now.) jim _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
