alwaysBuffer not set...

[Wouter]

> alwaysBuffer not set...
> Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
> Tue Jul 20 14:46:17 EDT 2004

-- snip


>
> Re-reading Chipp's post more carefully, he's referring only to IDE
> stacks, and yes, the IDE stacks should have their alwaysBuffer set to
> true.
>
> Can anyone think of a reason not to?  Unless someone tells me not to 
> I'm
> inclined to do it for the next release.
>
>
> As for doing that for all new stacks, I would happily add it as a
> preference (and will do so after this next build is released), but I'm
> disinclined to make non-optional changes that contradict how the engine
> works.
>
> Admittedly I'm a bit of a Transcript purist, but I feel one of the most
> useful aspects of the MC IDE is that it keeps you close to engine
> behaviors, minimizing differences between development and runtime, and
> keeping any additional libraries fully optional and under the
> developer's control.
>
> If we were to start down the slippery slope of altering behaviors from
> how they work in the engine and requiring specific additional scripts 
> to
> get the behaviors we expect, we not only complicate our work but also
> miss the opportunity to improve the engine itself.

Then in other words, RR itself is going down this slippery slope 
(looking at the script in the revmenubar and other rev stacks :-)
Or the slope is not that slippery.

>
> If we feel a default behavior is incorrect or suboptimal, it seems a
> good opportunity to address it at the source in the engine itself.

  I am not sure if this is really located at engine level.
If you compare the opaque setting of the default templateGraphic in MC 
and in RR they are different though they use the same engine  (or is 
the templateGraphic stashed far away from the templateStack?).
If this is at engine level then the engine itself is making a 
difference between the MC IDE and the RR IDE. And this could cause 
slippy-ness.
Also implicating separated  or singlesided engine improvement. ???

> I can think of no reason to have the alwaysBuffer set to false (though
> there might be so we should retain the property as an option), and 
> agree
> that having it on by default would be far better than its current
> default behavior.  Shall we post it to Bugzilla and see if it gets any
> votes?

I agree with this alwaysBuffer set to true and wouldn't mind 
templatePrefs.
Only wondering why slowly all those little differences are creeping in.
Undocumented little changes, to be discovered by (sometimes enervated 
:-) users.


>
> -- 
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Media Corporation


Regards,
Wouter