Re: [Fenfire-dev] PEG animation_api--mudyc: Animation Layer API

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:11:34PM +0300, Matti Katila wrote:
> 
> 
> I abandon this peg because of count of unresolved issues and the 
> misunderstanding of the idea between developers.

Sorry I haven't responded earlier - have been away from 
the network.

Like I said, when you started this PEG, I was really glad to
see it.

Please don't abandon it now - I do see it as a really worthwhile 
thing to do.  I know it can be difficult to reach understanding
of all the details of it, but it's important to do this to advance
the state of the APIs. And that's the reason we **have** PEGs: 
with all complicated systems, there *will* be lots of issues.
Nothing is as simple as anyone'd think it is. That's why the issues
need to be made explicit and discussed.

I'm really sorry if you've felt my tone being too adversarial in
this discussion: remember that for PEGs, the role of the others
is to be devil's advocate.  Even if I somewhat agree with something
but just have some doubts about some part of a thing, I must 
fight to get those doubts resolved instead of burying them.

I'll come to Jkl next week some time, probably we should discuss this
then in detail, because I'd really like to see this go through.
But in order for it to succeed we do have to resolve all the issues.
I'll help in any way I can, just ask.

Maybe one way to do it would be to have me or Benja join you as an author
of the PEG. But the issues do need to be hashed out.

Could you also be more explicit about the issues that made you decide
to abandon it; understanding what were the fatal ones would help
a lot.

Please make sure you understand: 1) I really do value you a lot
as a developer, 2) If there are problems (as with arch, or PEGs),
I really want to help change things so that they won't make you feel bad,
3) The animation API is a good idea that just has a lot of details
to be worked out.

        Tuomas