lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Hi guys, okay, I'd just like to quash this right here and right now, tell is NOT obsolete MM says in the Director manual that tell is apparently now obsolete and you dont need to use it anymore, except when of course you have to use it and perhaps MM should come forward and explain why I had to use tell in order to get my project to work, tell obsolete? nah, I dont think so. I got a director movie, which I use as a LDM within my main movie, within the LDM movie I've got a mouseEnter, Within and Leave events, I put some code in there, like below (I'll top post this code, so you can read this, THEN read the code): as you can see in my code, I've commented out all the tell commands, WITHOUT them, none of this code works, what happens, is that me.spriteNum is 2, which is NOT a sprite on the (main movies, but is within the LDM)stage, so it doesnt do ANYTHING, on the other icon I dropped this behaviour onto, it's spriteNum is 3, which happens to coincide with a bitmap of 810x610, but when I highlight the icon within the LDM, it highlights sprite(3) from the main movie! not the LDM. so I get a highlight (which is what the script does) over the sprite(3) within the main movie, as opposed to sprite(3) within the LDM, marvellous! The Hack is to get the LDM to tell the stage, to tell the LDM what to do, what a hack. Version 10+ of director and they havent got something like this working yet, people have only been requesting (and subsequently ignored for the most part) for the last 5+ years.. So remember people, whatever MM says, TELL IS NOT OBSOLETE!!! lingo global debug Property arrow, icon on mouseEnter me debug.putString(LDM(Navigation), mouseEnter()) -- tell the stage --tell channel(Navigation).sprite icon = sprite(me.spriteNum) arrow = channel(Highlight).sprite --end tell -- end tell end on mouseWithin me debug.putString(LDM(Navigation), mouseWithin()) -- tell the stage --tell channel(Navigation).sprite arrow.puppet = true arrow.visible = true arrow.width = icon.member.width + 10 arrow.height = icon.member.height + 10 arrow.locH = icon.locH - icon.member.width/2 - 5 arrow.locV = icon.locV - icon.member.height/2 - 5 --end tell -- end tell end on mouseLeave me -- tell the stage --tell channel(Navigation).sprite arrow.visible = false --end tell -- end tell end on mouseUp me -- tell the stage --tell channel(Navigation).sprite arrow.visible = false --end tell -- end tell end /lingo [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
The problem you raise is not an issue of tell being obsolete or not but strickly the problem of mouseEnter/Within/Leave targeting out of scope. Basically I find I do not use tell any more in DMX04 the new DOM renders it not essential. That does not mean that it won't work anymore (there are other lingo commands which are considered obsolete and still work) But for what you are doing I would restructure your code as follows --original code Property arrow, icon on mouseEnter me tell the stage tell channel(Navigation).sprite icon = sprite(me.spriteNum) arrow = channel(Highlight).sprite end tell end tell end --new structure Property arrow, icon on mouseEnter me _player.activeWindow.movie.channel(navigation).sprite.movie.call(#mEnter, me) end on mEnter me icon = sprite(me.spriteNum) arrow = channel(Highlight).sprite end Now that may seem more convoluted to some but personally I like the way it targets the proper scope and then allows me to write my code in a standard way without the nested tell statements. Both ways work. And yes I wish they had fixed the enter/within/leave problem too. hth, Rob On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:11:38 +0100, Evil Kosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, okay, I'd just like to quash this right here and right now, tell is NOT obsolete MM says in the Director manual that tell is apparently now obsolete and you dont need to use it anymore, except when of course you have to use it and perhaps MM should come forward and explain why I had to use tell in order to get my project to work, tell obsolete? nah, I dont think so. I got a director movie, which I use as a LDM within my main movie, within the LDM movie I've got a mouseEnter, Within and Leave events, I put some code in there, like below (I'll top post this code, so you can read this, THEN read the code): as you can see in my code, I've commented out all the tell commands, WITHOUT them, none of this code works, what happens, is that me.spriteNum is 2, which is NOT a sprite on the (main movies, but is within the LDM)stage, so it doesnt do ANYTHING, on the other icon I dropped this behaviour onto, it's spriteNum is 3, which happens to coincide with a bitmap of 810x610, but when I highlight the icon within the LDM, it highlights sprite(3) from the main movie! not the LDM. so I get a highlight (which is what the script does) over the sprite(3) within the main movie, as opposed to sprite(3) within the LDM, marvellous! The Hack is to get the LDM to tell the stage, to tell the LDM what to do, what a hack. Version 10+ of director and they havent got something like this working yet, people have only been requesting (and subsequently ignored for the most part) for the last 5+ years.. So remember people, whatever MM says, TELL IS NOT OBSOLETE!!! [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Hi Rob, I like it!!! it looks a lot cleaner than nested tell statements so I think I'll use that from now on, it's annoying that director can't figure out the right scope to be in, perhaps they should work a little bit harder at MM to earn that paycheck they think they deserve. Rob Romanek wrote: The problem you raise is not an issue of tell being obsolete or not but strickly the problem of mouseEnter/Within/Leave targeting out of scope. Basically I find I do not use tell any more in DMX04 the new DOM renders it not essential. That does not mean that it won't work anymore (there are other lingo commands which are considered obsolete and still work) But for what you are doing I would restructure your code as follows --original code Property arrow, icon on mouseEnter me tell the stage tell channel(Navigation).sprite icon = sprite(me.spriteNum) arrow = channel(Highlight).sprite end tell end tell end --new structure Property arrow, icon on mouseEnter me _player.activeWindow.movie.channel(navigation).sprite.movie.call(#mEnter, me) end on mEnter me icon = sprite(me.spriteNum) arrow = channel(Highlight).sprite end Now that may seem more convoluted to some but personally I like the way it targets the proper scope and then allows me to write my code in a standard way without the nested tell statements. Both ways work. And yes I wish they had fixed the enter/within/leave problem too. hth, Rob On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:11:38 +0100, Evil Kosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, okay, I'd just like to quash this right here and right now, tell is NOT obsolete MM says in the Director manual that tell is apparently now obsolete and you dont need to use it anymore, except when of course you have to use it and perhaps MM should come forward and explain why I had to use tell in order to get my project to work, tell obsolete? nah, I dont think so. I got a director movie, which I use as a LDM within my main movie, within the LDM movie I've got a mouseEnter, Within and Leave events, I put some code in there, like below (I'll top post this code, so you can read this, THEN read the code): as you can see in my code, I've commented out all the tell commands, WITHOUT them, none of this code works, what happens, is that me.spriteNum is 2, which is NOT a sprite on the (main movies, but is within the LDM)stage, so it doesnt do ANYTHING, on the other icon I dropped this behaviour onto, it's spriteNum is 3, which happens to coincide with a bitmap of 810x610, but when I highlight the icon within the LDM, it highlights sprite(3) from the main movie! not the LDM. so I get a highlight (which is what the script does) over the sprite(3) within the main movie, as opposed to sprite(3) within the LDM, marvellous! The Hack is to get the LDM to tell the stage, to tell the LDM what to do, what a hack. Version 10+ of director and they havent got something like this working yet, people have only been requesting (and subsequently ignored for the most part) for the last 5+ years.. So remember people, whatever MM says, TELL IS NOT OBSOLETE!!! [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!] [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
On Sep 13, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Evil Kosh wrote: I like it!!! it looks a lot cleaner than nested tell statements so I think I'll use that from now on, it's annoying that director can't figure out the right scope to be in, perhaps they should work a little bit harder at MM to earn that paycheck they think they deserve. ?? That is a bit harsh there, Evil. Director is a pretty complex beast. And it isn't like the developers of Director can come here and ask Rob how best to format a one-line mouseEnter statement which will fix their problems, right? Somehow I think the scope is a bit larger than that. I think the folks at Macr. who we know from this list and others are earning their paychecks. Does that mean Director is *perfect*? No. Of course not. Frankly, I hate all the techniques involved in LDMs and MIAWs. I want real multi-windowed apps, and a true nested hierarchy, myself. In the meantime, we make do with what we've got. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
At 16:43 Uhr +0100 13.09.2004, Evil Kosh wrote: perhaps they should work a little bit harder at MM to earn that paycheck they think they deserve. I'm sure it is a statement like this, which will lead to more enthusiasm in the director team to fix thissue. perhaps they didn't know until now, that they didn't work hard enough ? honestly, before you throw such words towards others fix your own scripts first and stop for example puppetting the sprites, which is not necessary and is less necessary repeatedly on every frame in the mousewithin handler... -- ||| a¿ex -- [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Perhaps it is a bit harsh but cmon, this isnt alpha software, or even beta, we are in version 10.0 and they havent got basic scope issues resolved yet. I'm an application programmer myself and I know these things can be tricky, but only if you have a bad design, perhaps for MX2005, they should think about rewriting some of the core to fix some of these issues instead of tinkering around the edges doing pretty much nothing. Flash team sorted this, why can't the director team, perhaps a little team rivalry is required to get them into shape. The fact is that director isnt in the position it's in because it's the best at doing this kind of thing, it's in the position it's in because nobody is around to compete against it so the team must be sitting on their laurels rather than fixing the real issues the newsgroups are full of Troy Rollins wrote: On Sep 13, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Evil Kosh wrote: I like it!!! it looks a lot cleaner than nested tell statements so I think I'll use that from now on, it's annoying that director can't figure out the right scope to be in, perhaps they should work a little bit harder at MM to earn that paycheck they think they deserve. ?? That is a bit harsh there, Evil. Director is a pretty complex beast. And it isn't like the developers of Director can come here and ask Rob how best to format a one-line mouseEnter statement which will fix their problems, right? Somehow I think the scope is a bit larger than that. I think the folks at Macr. who we know from this list and others are earning their paychecks. Does that mean Director is *perfect*? No. Of course not. Frankly, I hate all the techniques involved in LDMs and MIAWs. I want real multi-windowed apps, and a true nested hierarchy, myself. In the meantime, we make do with what we've got. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!] [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Well as this is rapidly turning into a flame war I'm just gonna butt in with something random before the thread is ditched... Evil Kosh? Arguably the Vorlons as a race are evil due to their manipulation of the younger races throughout the millenia (after all, they are no different to the Shadows in that respect). But if you're referring to purple Encounter Suit Kosh then I'd appreciate you use his/her/its correct name. Admittedly, we are all Kosh hints at a collective consciousness but as each Kosh we encounter was given a specific name it'd be nice if you used them. But is is Naranek or Ulkesh? Can you remember? Ross So sorry for the childish post there list - it was a one off troll-bait I deemed better than flying off with foul language at our esteemed list member. [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
RE: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Evil Kosh Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says dude, just cause you noticed a bug doesnt discount what I said, we're in version 10.0 and core issues like scope are not fixed yet. At version 10.0, ANY application should be going into maintanence mode on the older features whilst introducing NEW features, not STILL fixing issues from like 5+ years ago, thats just lazy/bad application development First, obsolete has never meant it won't work, just that its being phased out. Tell is not needed as Rob has shown you and LDMs, to my knowledge, have never been a fully supported feature. Its one of those things that was added in as a nice extra. I would certainly rather get a few half way features than not have any access to them because they could not be fully finalized. I have pages of things that I have used over the years that are either undocumented or unsupported. You have to be careful, but sometimes the reward far outweighs the risk. I would like these items cleaned up a bit as well, but don't start attacking the developers for this. They do a lot with the little they have. There is a problem with MM ignoring Director (I would say it comes from the CEO chair) but making attacks on the programmers is not going to help. Submit a bug report or ask for a solution, but the fact is many people are using the features you are complaining about just fine. Its simply a matter of understanding how they work and how to get them working the way you want. I'm sure it is a statement like this, which will lead to more enthusiasm in the director team to fix thissue. well it sure as hell couldnt do any harm could it! Yes it can hurt. The developers, especially Tom, have been great about listening to the community. If all we do is badger them I certainly would not expect them to keep being so helpful. :) -Chuck -- Chuck Neal CEO, MediaMacros, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mediamacros.com -- Check out the Developers Mall Your one stop shop for all your Director Xtra Needs http://www.mediamacros.net/customer [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Hi Thomas, Thomas Higgins wrote: Evil, well it sure as hell couldnt do any harm could it! Yes, it does harm to read unnecessarily harsh criticism when it's not clearly targeted or properly warranted. I guess it would hurt peoples feelings I suppose nobody is around to compete against it so the team must be sitting on their laurels rather than fixing the real issues Who do you think is sitting around on their laurels (please choose one): A. Engineering (QA and development) B. Executive Management insert Jeopardy tune here If you chose A then understand that nobody on the engineering side of things is resting on their laurels at all. This team has suffered repeated reductions in team size since D8.5 and has continuously increased the contribution per engineer (the reductions have outpaced the increase per engineer :( ). We (I was on QA until about 5 months ago) have worked every release as hard as we could, there weren't more hours to give or energy to expend. Everyone on engineering stresses about, worries over and gives their all to each release and so if your words are aimed at them then you're being offensive and unjustly harsh towards that group (one in which I place myself to this day). ok, perhaps they are under a lot of stress, but they arent explaining themselves much either, upon the question of fully operational LDM's whats your engineering team say about it? where is the QA about it, where is the explanation about why it's apparently so hard to do something which should have been in years ago, people, like me, get frustrated sometimes not because you dont do some feature we request, but because you dont give us features we request and then dont explain WHY, we have a very valid reason for wanting LDM's fully operational and MM's only explanation to this day is that macromedia does not endorse the use of LDM's. Care to explain why? Would it be because you havent quite figured out how to do it yet? Dont just sit there saying you work really hard, tell me why this feature has remained relatively undocumented and so hard to find out about. The flash team certainly didnt have as much trouble in doing the equivelent, ever considered thats why Flash is overtaking director? (Although that said I'd use Director in it's current form over flash in most projects anyway, ActiveX objects are important to me [webbrowser?]) If you chose B then you might have a valid argument as engineering didn't choose to have staff reductions and thus not allow the full and proper attention the application needs (I don't discount the need to fix historical bugs - on the contrary I agree completely). Please note that I am know a bit closer to this group than I previously was, but I'm doing my level best to improve the situation (note that I'm not executive management, I'm part of the layer between them and engineering - that's fancy speak for middle management). If you're going to spit words that are harsh like this, please aim carefully. I earn my paycheck, every penny of it. Perhaps I should have said what I just did above before I started saying those things, so I guess this is your chance to put me right and shut me up, if you can give a good answer, that'd be great, giving no answer, would be a sure giveaway as to why your team has been reduced and flash expanded, wouldnt it? Regards, Tom Higgins Product Manager - Director http://www.markme.com/thiggins/ ... [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!] [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
thats just lazy/bad application development I've spent the last hour trying to decide how intemperate my language should be, considering the collegial nature of this list. Oh, well, here goes: Evil, you're full of shit on this one. I know a goodly number of the Director team, and can truthfully say that I know of no harder working development team. More importantly, this is a team that LOVES its product -- from JT and Dan Sadowski, who've worked on Director since, well, forever, to Tom Higgins who now honchos the team but started at MACR doing phone support. The truth of the matter is that you're lucky that Director's still around for you to bitch about. My view is that, over the years, there have been a lot of people at MACR who would have been just as happy to have seen Director die, or at least Authorwared. But Director's still around, and I'm not sure that there's any reason other than that these guys kept blind faith. Rather than sitting their laurels rather than fixing the real issues, the last release fixed a TON of bugs. I know that they got to most everything on Gretchen's list, and a pretty good chunk of the issues that were important to me. (Except type, but that's another story...) So, from where I sit, they've done pretty damn well for themselves. As for the instant issue, having to use a less elegant syntax style (which works), rather than new syntax, I'm not sure of the reasons for the depth of your frustration. While Director is version 10 (and I've used every single one of them), the new object model is VERSION ONE. Some stuff slipped through the cracks. Big deal, there's a workaround. I'll bet if you take the time to formally report the issue, it'll get fixed in due course. As an aside, I once used the word lazy, on another list, referring to MACR management, on a more serious issue than missing syntax. Some of the Director team took offense, and I ended making a number of apologies and bringing a bottle of Irish whisky to San Francisco as a peace offering. You might want to consider somthing similar... [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Youthful exuberance is so quick to conclude what they dont understand the full scope of. I thought Tom was very open in his reply (as open as he can be in his position), and listening to what was said with a desire to understand, rather than being close-minded, would have revealed such. Im not going to reiterate all the discussion, on just this list, about Director shortcomings over even the last few months (in deference to Troy :-) ), but there is a lot there that might help you understand better. If youre going to succeed in your own personal endeavors, then learning to listen with an open mind is a prerequisite. Then proceeding with polite and constructive criticism followed by positive actions on your part may accomplish such. What you are doing is akin to blaming the soldier for the politicians greed and ignorance. Lee C Evil Kosh wrote: Hi Thomas, ok, perhaps they are under a lot of stress, but they arent explaining themselves much either, upon the question of fully operational LDM's whats your engineering team say about it? where is the QA about it, where is the explanation about why it's apparently so hard to do something which should have been in years ago, people, like me, get frustrated sometimes not because you dont do some feature we request, but because you dont give us features we request and then dont explain WHY, we have a very valid reason for wanting LDM's fully operational and MM's only explanation to this day is that macromedia does not endorse the use of LDM's. Care to explain why? Would it be because you havent quite figured out how to do it yet? Dont just sit there saying you work really hard, tell me why this feature has remained relatively undocumented and so hard to find out about. The flash team certainly didnt have as much trouble in doing the equivelent, ever considered thats why Flash is overtaking director? (Although that said I'd use Director in it's current form over flash in most projects anyway, ActiveX objects are important to me [webbrowser?]) [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
RE: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
Evil, ok, perhaps they are under a lot of stress, but they arent explaining themselves much either, upon the question of fully operational LDM's whats your engineering team say about it? where is the QA about it, where is the explanation about why it's apparently so hard to do something which should have been in years ago, people, like me, get frustrated sometimes not because you dont do some feature we request, but because you dont give us features we request and then dont explain WHY, we have a very valid reason for wanting LDM's fully operational and MM's only explanation to this day is that macromedia does not endorse the use of LDM's. Care to explain why? Each release we list out features that are to be considered (LDM changes/improvements among others), each feature is then considered based on its cost and percieved benefit and then a final feature list is determined, that determination does NOT come from engineering, it comes from product and executive management based on the percieved cost/benefit ratios (read my signature - know that this is now part of my job so as I said I'm working to improve things). The idea is that each release there's a time frame and resource constraint (we have only so much time and so many engineers) and so choices are made that so far haven't included LDM improvements but have others. For me personally, this one feature is at the top of my list of things to do as I've been a big proponent of it all along. I'm going to continue pushing for it (and 3D improvements!) as hard as ever. Would it be because you havent quite figured out how to do it yet? Well, to be honest it hasn't all been sorted out yet else that would be a completed feature, right? But it's not that it's out of the realm of our ability, it's just that each engineer doesn't get to come in each day and say gee, what do I want to work on today?, rather the feature set for each release drives their day to day and as I said, prior product/executive management teams haven't prioritized and included this in a release as of yet. Just because it hasn't been completed doesn't mean our team can't complete it. Should I assert that you can't do something just because you haven't happened to have done it yet (or haven't done it yet where I can see it - do you know what prototypes I might have access to today?)? That's not a safe assumption in any situation. Dont just sit there saying you work really hard, Why does the lack of a specific feature translate into us not working hard? You might not desire/use them, but you don't see any chance of hard work having gone into _any_other_ part of Director these past few releases? JS syntax, that was all easy work? Cross-platform projectors, that didn't take hardly a thought now did it? Lack of your feature does NOT equate to a lack of work. The flash team certainly didnt have as much trouble in doing the equivelent, ever considered thats why Flash is overtaking director? The Flash file structure came well after Director so yes, that is part of the reason for its success. They were able to develop their needs based on clearly defined information brought about by the presence of Director for many releases prior to its existence (born outside of Macromedia and bought based on the Director team's recommendation). So it was easier for them to incorporate such functionality because they had that in mind from the get go, compare that to the Director player not having been created with nested movies in mind and you might see that while the functionality is the same on the surface, the underlying problems to solve are entirely different. The Flash team has quite a talented set of engineers (most of the ex-Director engineers weren't let go, they were moved to Flash!) and they get considerably more support from Macromedia than Director and Shockwave do, ever consider that's why they're overtaking Director? It's not about who has the more talented and smarter staff, it's about how the company handles and supports each of the products. All your issues should be with how the company has handled the product, not with the engineering staff themselves. Perhaps I should have said what I just did above before I started saying those things, so I guess this is your chance to put me right and shut me up, if you can give a good answer, that'd be great, giving no answer, would be a sure giveaway as to why your team has been reduced and flash expanded, wouldnt it? My preference is that you shut up, I care not whether you've been put right or not. Sorry, I said it. You seem far too combative without really seeking information or understanding first (why would I want to talk to someone who started things by taking swinging a punch at me?). Believe me, I deal with folks angry and upset with Macromedia daily, I can generally handle it with understanding well enough. But in your case it's different, you want a fight, you want to rile folks up and you don't
RE: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
At 14:02 Uhr -0700 13.09.2004, Thomas Higgins wrote: For me personally, this one feature is at the top of my list of things to do as I've been a big proponent of it all along. I'm going to continue pushing for it (and 3D improvements!) as hard as ever. Yikes ! ...need some pushing help for both items to make it into the todo list ?! ;-) -- ||| a¿ex -- [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
Re: lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
I'm just going to through my 2 cents in on this matter. A couple years ago I penned a letter to MM which I posted to Direct-L requesting that MM move to full support of LDMs, I cited the advancements in Flash and also experiences with my students as to why I thought this would be a good thing. I don't think I went about it in an abrasive manner, but rather an agressive one, I think there is a difference. And most importantly for me is that I put my name to my opinions. I hoped that that action would put some weight to my requests instead of simply being some anonymous entity. Some time after that post and in response to others on other Director topics John Dowdell (from MM) posted a relatively in-depth statement on weighing the cost of implementation vs the return and the ever shrinking budgets, manpower etc. I think this is the tightrope that the Director team is constantly walking and they may also be getting tired of explaining it over and over. Right now I prefer to focus on the positive. As Tom McCrystal said this is version 1 of the new object model so there are things that it will not cover, not only that but it has to maintain backward compatibility (I don't think Flash had the same level of legacy code to maintain when it was restructured). I personally think it is a great version! With focusing on the positive I think that I'll see more responses from Tom Higgins and the Director team when I'm looking for help and clarification than if I was constantly harping (and I would prefer Tom H focus his energies on that then constantly defending Director). Finally, like to think that the one area of expertise I have to offer with Director is with LDMs and if I can help people out on the lists in this area then more people will try to use them, and more postings and questions may help leverage the level of importance of LDMs and bring about their full implementation sooner. I think that is the case in this version of Director. Having been on the beta I saw how they evolved into being part of the DOM when they could have easily been left out because of time considerations and this inclusion has greatly increased the ability to use them and bodes well for their future. Rob On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:39:06 +0100, Evil Kosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ok, perhaps they are under a lot of stress, but they arent explaining themselves much either, upon the question of fully operational LDM's whats your engineering team say about it? where is the QA about it, where is the explanation about why it's apparently so hard to do something which should have been in years ago, people, like me, get frustrated sometimes not because you dont do some feature we request, but because you dont give us features we request and then dont explain WHY, we have a very valid reason for wanting LDM's fully operational and MM's only explanation to this day is that macromedia does not endorse the use of LDM's. Care to explain why? Would it be because you havent quite figured out how to do it yet? Dont just sit there saying you work really hard, tell me why this feature has remained relatively undocumented and so hard to find out about. The flash team certainly didnt have as much trouble in doing the equivelent, ever considered thats why Flash is overtaking director? (Although that said I'd use Director in it's current form over flash in most projects anyway, ActiveX objects are important to me [webbrowser?]) [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
lingo-l LDM's and TELL is NOT obsolete whatever MM says
(I don't think Flash had the same level of legacy code to maintain when it was restructured) I'm trying to update a project done several years ago using Director 5 or 6 Stephen I'm working on a G5, running OSX 10.3.2. using Director MX 2004. All I have to do (I thought) is to open the .dir files with MX 2004 and save them. (I have done that, and everything was all right). Then I have opened the stub.dir file and try to publish it for OSX and classic versions, but here the problem; as soon as the program start (just the black screen of the stub file), it crash. This happen with both projectors, OSX and classic, the only difference is that in classic mode, there is a message coming up saying There is an invalid castmember [] in this movie and then crash. If I run the project in authoring mode through Director it works fine. Does anyone have an idea of what it should be?? Thanks Teo [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!] [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
