"Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:52:03PM +0200, Göran Hultgren wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > Oh yeah, forgot to add my list. One thing off the top of my head though: Image
> > building instead of image stripping. That is a biggie in my book.
> 
> If we want this, it would be good to store objects as well as classes/methods
> in modules.  For example, say that there is a Wonderland module.  Where would
> the bunny come from?  A method to generate the mesh is conceivable, but ugly.
> It would be better to have a serialized mesh object that can be understood once
> the code from the module is read in.

Yes, this has been discussed also at great lenght. Personally I think we
should aim at the code first and then look at "objects". Others feel
that a general solution for objects would "solve it all" but I tend to
disagree - the problems with separating code into Modules is not simply
a problem of putting objects in different "buckets" - it's more complex
than that.

> I think that this would be great, but would add complexity to a problem that
> has already shown itself to be difficult enough.  Eventually, it will probably

Yes, agree.

> be far easier to add this feature to Modules than it will be to refactor the
> image into modules that can be sequentially filed in.

Well, I am not sure about the comparison. But to add storing of objects
in the repositories is not so hard once Modules work ok.

regards, Göran

PS. Does anyone know where Dan is? He hasn't said peep for a long
time... DS