On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 00:10 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> >
>
> This will cause arguments until a reason for either which is valid and
> reasonable in such as it overrides any disadvantages one way or another.
The most convincing and compelling reason in favor of this is that I'm
the one codi
>
> Unlike dischi, I want to allow
> > I see a GUI rendering thread, an event thread and a GUI event handler
> > thread running concurrently.
>
> I'm not sure what benefit using threads would give us here. There would
> certainly have to be a big payoff, because the increase in complexity is
> high.
I'm thinking in terms of C++,
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 17:20 +0100, Hans Meine wrote:
> I find the latter more natural (and very useful, too) - how about allowing
> simple expressions as values, then one could write "100% - 10" to simulate
> the first. I know, this is extra work to implement, but it's certainly
> something I m
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 19:22 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > >
> > > rectange#myrect {
> > > top: 25%;
> > > left: 25%;
> > > width: 50%;
> > > height: 50%;
> > > }
> > >
I'm certainly not opposed to css-style syntax. I think a DOM interface
is overkill, and frankly not very well suited
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 22:06 +, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > But I'm not sure I can handle all events in the engine. The engine has
> > no idea what what possible events can happen (like cdrom disc
> > change). So I guess it will be abstracter.
>
> Why not just tell the engine when an event occurs
> The xml file defines which engine to use. The engine does all the
> animation and condition stuff. Two xml files can share the same engine
> (e.g. a 4:3 and 16:9 version of the same skin). And when you write an
> engine, you can inherit from another one and just override your
> changes (e.g. the
Karl Lattimer wrote:
>> > or possibly ing conditions like so
>> >
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >