alwaysBuffer not set...

[Richard Gaskin]

Wouter wrote:

>> 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.

Opinons have been posted both ways.

The Rev IDE alters a number of engine behaviors, mostly because when 
they started they didn't have access to the engine.

If one prefers the Rev IDE it's easily available and ever-improving.

>> 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?).

Yes, the Rev IDE alters many default engine behaviors.

> 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. ???

No, you can verify this by using the same engine in both environments. 
Any differences between the two are specific to the IDEs.

>> 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.

I'm not sure any Rev behaviors are undocumented.  You'd have the check 
the Rev docs.  My role here is just to support the MC IDE maintenance 
and development, honoring the community's preference that its value as a 
closer-to-the-engine alternative be maintained.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com