[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: local editing

At 16:40 -0500 2/8/98, Erik Ostrom wrote:
>well, not necessarily.  i believe you could design an editing package
>that would not _require_ a lot of core changes, but would be ready to
>go _if_ someone made the core changes.  the biggest change would be
>the addition of persistent editing sessions, but we actually have a
>lot of infrastructure for that in the existing editors.

OK, make sense.

>your general point is "provide a simple local editing package, and
>allow for the creation of a better one later", and okay, fair enough,
>although i'm a little iffy about calling it a "standard package".

Well what I really fear is that if the minimal local editing package is too
complex then people will back up and each implement their own non-standard
version of a primitive local editing package. But then it's probably a
non-issue if some people provide some good implementions everyone use
(because it's part of LCore, JHCore, etc...) This fear is probably
developed because I get confused about how to implement the cords
support... but a) that's my problem, b) it will be solved when some people
provide some MOO implementations the specs that support them and that
everyone can use.

>however, i _don't_ think you should tie a reasonable editing package
>to an object browser.  the latter is likely to be highly dependent on
>the server (and possibly database) used, while a good editing system
>is useful anywhere.

Maybe I should have rather said 'as part as a more complex set of packages
that would be complete enough to make an object browser'. You are perfectly
right that the editing package should not be tied to the object browser (on
the other hand the obj browser could make a good use of a good editing