[openbeos] Re: Visual design stuff again

  • From: Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:20:08 -0700

> I do see there is a certain inconsistency though, in that all the teams
> knocking out "internal" code are happy to take the API and then
> implement it as they see fit, with whatever improvements they think
> work in that framework - whereas the UI "implementation" is pretty much
> pixel-for-pixel identical to R5. Changes in implementation go from the
> simple "I've added flag y to our function x to be more POSIX
> compatible", to "We're putting all the networking in the kernel" -
> these type of changes are almost always welcomed. Yet if someone came
> along tomorrow and said "I've made all the widgets look more modern,
> and the OS as a whole much more appealing to a wider audience", I think
> they would face a lot of resistance getting the code accepted. Am I the
> only one who sees this as an inconsistency?

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete userland networking system, 
and someone came along and said they were going to do a kernelland version, 
with a boottime flag to choose between the two, I for one would argue they 
should spend their time elsewhere till we get R1 out. We don't have such a 
system, though, so we may as well do it all in the kernel to begin with.

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete implementation of the R5 
equivalent of the DiskDevice API, we probably wouldn't be doing a new and 
vastly improved version like we currently are.

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete set of R5 UI components, 
which in this case we do, and someone said they wanted to add in a new 
look, I would say we should wait and do it right later once we get R1 out.

This is why I don't believe we're being inconsistent, but it's a fair 
question. :-)


Other related posts: