LCDproc development and user support list

Text archives Help


[Lcdproc] Style of discusssion (was: bounding box)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: reenoo AT gmx.de (Rene Wagner)
  • Subject: [Lcdproc] Style of discusssion (was: bounding box)
  • Date: Fri Aug 1 17:57:01 2003

Hi Joris,
Hi all,

see my other mail for the technical part of this...

On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 23:04, Joris Robijn wrote:
> You are not open for discussion !

My personal conclusion on this is that a discussion
is neccessary but that it's not time to discuss introducing
a "bounding box" but to solve the problems that you have
come across and that without doing any harm to the current design
of LCDd - functionality in the server core, drivers that are
as simple as possible.

Feel free to keep ignoring what I've said but that does not mean
that I have to agree with you.

> You talk like Michael, me and maybe
> others are stupid.

I have never said anybody was stupid.

> Stop doing that, we have to solve this as a team.

Working in a team does not directly imply that you have
to share the opinions of other team members.
You can then start discussing forever like we've done many
times.

Don't get me wrong... I've always enjoyed discussions
on this ML but I simply don't have that much spare time ATM.

The other option is to say no in the first place, which is
what I've done.
That is not directed against anybody.

>
> > > In normal main screen the "widget-cutting" is no problem
> > > for renderer (except bignums).
> > > But does nobody want to use frame widgets ???
> >
> > Frames are indeed a nice feature and I appreciate all work done
> > on this topic, but you can't change the driver API every time
> > you feel like it was merely simpler to do it that way.
>
> That's not at the all case. Rene are you aware that your words could
> easily be seen as unsulting ?

I can't influence the way you think about that sentence
anyway.
I can only assure you that it's not my intention to be
insulting.

This is a technical discussion if you ask me... and the above
describes how I think about API changes - nothing else.

>
> > > That should be really a problem of the driver ! (IMHO)
> >
> > No.
> (and nothing else than this single world)
>
> Respect other people's ideas if they have though about it.

I respect other people's ideas. Why does that mean I have to
share their opinions? Why can't I just say No?

> Maybe this
> issue is more complex that it might seem.

We are talking design considerations here. And it would simply
be a bad design to move more and more functionality into the drivers
when you can do it on the rendering level.

> > Also, I'm not willing to discuss a non-issue any longer.
>
> What should I say about this ? This clearly IS an issue, otherwise we
> would not be talking about it. You are violating people.

This can be implemented on the rendering level, thus you don't need the
bounding box.
So why is the bounding box an issue?

Implementing frame handling is an issue, it most definitely is.
The current API may have to be modified, sure.
However, the aim should be to keep the drivers as simple as they
can possibly be.

Rendering has to be done in a central place. Anything else would
create duplicate code, implementing it in the drivers would make driver
writing more complex than neccessary, and raise Coding in the dark
questions.

>
> > The rendering - _all_ rendering - has to be done in server/render.c.
>
> There is no reason at all why this should be so.

I have clearly descibed the reasons to this. David, has raised the same
questions and mostly agreed with me if I've understood him correctly.

> It is YOUR OPINION that
> it should be so.

And it is your opinion that it should not.

That leads us nowhere.

>
> Working in a team also involves respecting the other team members and
> using the appropriate language.

That from you who "started" the discussion with a clear "Comments
within the next 24 hours, or else..."

Sorry...

> I want you in the team Rene, you have
> done a lot in the past, taken part in the discussion and I really
> appreciate that. But you visions should be put in a more mild way.

OK, it seems like a clear and repeated No doesn't count?

Regards,

Rene





  • [Lcdproc] Style of discusssion (was: bounding box), Rene Wagner, 08/01/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page