| Re: [AD] Allegro generalization/extension mechanism |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Allegro generalization/extension mechanism
- From: Elias Pschernig <elias.pschernig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:32 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=qw9Ehz8GQGTuLV8eUBCaN6kW/2+cibWCmDmR7DNqRxRELmG7gnLJlLptrJLkqY41kE1mx53ddyh1ztMmZcV5K+mcmHlL7fbprm/udt75CzjGF6ruzF05A8/IL0Cj5vqHLffM1ixwTF2udat2HJ23q5i+3uznJa/UwTYo0HlLtCE=
My idea would be to make it as modular as possible, but have a
distribution which includes some addons. Or maybe 2 distributions -
one of about the size of the current lib, which would include just a
few absolutely necessary addons, like loadpng or alleggl. And another
huge distribution which would then also contain things like networking
or collision detection.
But the core Allegro would be much smaller than the current even, no
GUI or software 3d or drawing primitives. All would be in addons, so
the core itself as well as the addons would be small, simple, and easy
to maintain. It would be more of an internal structure though.. users
who download the distributions wouldn't even notice.. but they would
benefit since they could e.g. update single addons before the next
release of one of the big distributions. I just feel it is the
cleanest way, no need to have the libpng source uploaded into the CVS
repository, when including the latest libpng in the user distribution
is enough.