AW: Want to contribute

[kpovmodeler-devel@mail.kde.org]

Hi all!

(still no internet access, writing this through a web interface at work)

> On Wednesday 22 January 2003 14:38, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
> > I want to contribute to kpovmodeler development. Since I'm currently
> > following a course on animation techniques, I would like to begin an
> > animation system for KPovModeler. Is anybody working on that currently
?

No, nobody is working on an animation system. This would be a great
contribution to our program.
 
> Andreas may have some class interfaces already because of the plugin 
> architecture.

Especially the properties system:
PMVariant
PMObject::setAttribute
PMObject::attribute
PMMetaObject
PMProperty

> > I just downloaded the current CVS, and I have some thoughts about it:
> > 	- I think it would be better if the source files are divided into
> > subdirectories. If you agree, I'll do it and submit the new source
tree
> > for review. I know that it will be a pain since CVS doesn't allow to
do
> > this sort of things gracefully, but IMHO it is really needed.
> 
> We are currently on a moving process. It's not certain that we'll be
staying 
> in kdegraphics or where we'll move to for that matter. Aldo, with the
plugin 
> architecture it was known that we would have to restructure the source
code. 
> Again, Andreas may already have a proposal. Be sure to check with him so
that 
> you don't duplicate work.

The problem is: We found no way to build a shared library from sources in
different directories. And I don't want to move the buildin POV-Ray
functionality to a plugin, as plugins can be deactivated.

> > 	- I would like to try to adapt the concept of the IDEAl mode of
gideon
> > (a.k.a. kdevelop 3, screenshot:
> > http://www.kdevelop.org/graphics/pic_corner/gideon-3.0.png) to
> > kpovmodeler. Since I don't think it will be a pain to do (the UI of
> > kpovmodeler seems really well-designed), I think I'll do it and ask
for a
> > review.
> >
> 
> Well, I like the UI as it is now, but it's all about choice. Maybe IDEAl
is 
> better. I've never tried it really. Just allow us to use the old one if
we 
> prefer.

I like the GUI as it is now, too. And it is simple and configurable by the
user with docking and with the configuration dialog.

> PS: Andreas didn't have Internet access for some time and I'm not sure
he's 
> back yet, so expect some delay in getting answers from him.

I hope to get my ISDN card working this afternoon.

Greetings, Andreas