I agree with everyone so far. New development should not be to make things harder, it should be to make things easier for the other developers. More shortcuts should be added off the root of each control to hide the complexity of the control from the developer.
You are asking that everyone contribute to the documentation and many have jumped in head first and are doing a great job at it. But if you keep changing the API, the documentation they are creating will be for not. A quick example would be the borders. My application was working fine and if I had written a bunch of docs on how to create and use borders, my docs would have been rendered useless a couple of days ago when the borders API was changed. All of a sudden, I had a flat app with no borders. I had to look through code to figure out what changed and then go into my code and make all the changes just to get back to where I was. I didn't see any real reason for the change.
So making API changes effects not only developers but all the people you have writing docs for you. When we get to a release point for .6, there will be no way to know if the docs are correct if you keep changing the API along the way. Even a tiny change will cause programs to stop working and already written documentation to erroneous.

Just my $.02

Thanks,
Jim

On 8/16/06, Christian Boulanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I would support Derrell.

I have already said that the "moving target" nature of qooxdoo creates
many problems for developers to build applications along with the
development. Yes, I know it is not 1.0 and yes, I recognize the need for
optimization etc. etc. and lastly, I do recognize that the main developers
need to work efficiently and cannot discuss everything... but I would be
extremely careful about API changes that break other people's existing
application (If that is the case, I don't know).

It would be less of a problem if you keep the API by internal shortcuts -
you could add a function that marks the API call as deprecated while still
maintaining funtionality. This could be cleaned up later.

But most importantly, I support Derrels point to keep function names as
short as possible and not get too enthousiastic about the namespace model.
_javascript_ is not Java. If you provide shortcuts from the qx root or at
most from qx.foo, I'd be more convinced...

Christian

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> -    qx.core.Init.defineMain(function() {
>> +    qx.core.Init.getInstance().defineMain(function() {
>
> Sebastian, I've been looking at your numerous recent singleton changes
> which
> affect every application and developer of qooxdoo.  You are adding levels
> of
> indirection that are entirely superfluous, for the sole purpose, it seems,
> of
> making it more difficult for the developer to use qooxdoo.  We should be
> providing ways to REDUCE the number of internal class references needed to
> be
> known by the user, not INCREASE them as you're doing.
>
> Instead of changing from
>   qx.core.Init.defineMain()
> to
>   qx.core.Init.getIntance().defineMain()
>
> if we're going to make a change at all, it  should be something more
> towards
>   qx.defineMain()
> not the other way around as you've done.
>
> Similarly for all (hundreds?) of the other classes that you changed to add
> a
> requirement for a getInstance() call.
>
> I don't believe that there was anything wrong with the previous method of
> creating singletons, and it was much easier for the user to work with than
> having to call getInstance() each time.  In fact, there's no reason for
> the
> user to even have to know, in many (most?) cases, that he's working with a
> singleton.
>
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE "discuss" before "doing".  Big changes like this
> should
> not be a one-person decision, particularly when it effects each and every
> qooxdoo application and developer like this does.
>
> Developers, please chime in here.  If you all think that these changes are
> "good", "useful" and/or "necessary", say so.  If you think that this is
> going
> in the wrong direction, we need to hear that too.  Maybe I'm not speaking
> for
> the community, so let's hear from y'all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derrell
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Reply via email to