[GEM-dev] [pix_record] api question

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

chris clepper wrote:
> I currently have several works on three continents which rely on
> pix_record working exactly as is.  Given the low to mid six figure
> worth of the work and the fact that I cannot recall it to change it
> over, I am going to have to say the interface is fixed.  Sorry but I
> made pix_record in order to make a living!  It is central and critical
> to the work I am doing so any change would possibly fork my
> contributions to GEM.  Hopefully I can make things work like I
> designed them, but if that is not possible then I will have to
> consider alternatives.
> 


1st of all, i was asking whether it was possible to change the API.
the crucial words are "asking" and "possible".
i still believe that the object-api design is a bad hack as it inherits
(though not in an oo way of thinking) things from a different object,
that does something else.
but if it breaks things i can live with it.

> If you want to do you own thing on Linux then please make a separate
> object.  I was actually going to suggest doing that in the other
> thread because, honestly, Linux is the odd man out on this one and
> should probably just adapt to the other two platforms as well as
> possible.

yes that is what i am trying to do.
the point is, that you just seem to tend to ignore that there are more
people in this boat, and that they should somehow live together, even if
one is "the odd man out".
of course you are free to ignore this.

> 
> Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh, but these changes are costing
> people time and money.  This should have been discussed and agreed
> upon before it was done.
> 

well, i totally agree on that.
this is why i discussed the issues of the possibility to interface
several different APIs a long time ago (early may 2003)
quoting you back then:
"Well I've spent the past two days trying to work out pix_filmNEW and a
lot of that time I was cursing the name Johannes Zmoelnig.  You've done
it again!  It's really poor form to make changes to classes that affect..."

obviously you didn't bother since then about other platforms (since it
works for you).
what i do not understand is, why you think that it is so stupid to find
a solution that fits all?
writing [pix_record] in the way [pix_filmNEW] and [pix_videoNEW] are
written would have been just the same amount of work as writing like you
did.
however, now it was me who has "spent the past two days trying to work
out pix_record and a lot of that time I was cursing the name..."

right, your commits didn't break anything as you have put just huge
#ifdefs around them, but so what?

why are you not interested in giving people who work on more than 1 (or
2) platforms the chance to re-use their patches (e.g. i know people who
chose Gem because they are working on w32 _and_ linux _and_ osX)

people who just use w32 and osX are free to choose max/jitter


hope this is not too harsh.

all the best
mfg.asd.r
IOhannes