From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Sat Jul 23 12:39:13 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:36:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <707552.1122115010590.JavaMail.adm-moff@moffice6.nsc.no> From: Jo Even Skarstein To: Subject: [MiNT] SV: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components In-Reply-To: <20050723024240.i1nwrhfw2rzc4cs0@coolrunningconcepts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_9096_21210388.1122115010586" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Mobile Office v1.0 (Telenor Business Solutions) References: <20050723024240.i1nwrhfw2rzc4cs0@coolrunningconcepts.com> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: joska@online.no Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: ------=_Part_9096_21210388.1122115010586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: evan@coolrunningconcepts.com > Sent: 2005-07-23 10:42:40 CEST > To: Jo Even Skarstein [joska@online.no] > > Module X uses WCOWORK, Module Y does not. Module Y calls wind_create() > expecting that wind_create() uses the FULL area of the window, but WCOWORK > being in effect means that all calls require the WORK area instead. The API > changes! > > Suddenly, how one module behaves DOES depend on what another module does! But then WCOWORK is a part of the interface! I still don't see the problem here. > So what breaks if we have seperate calls instead? What happens if the same application use both the old way and WCOWORK to deal with windows? What's the point in WCOWORK at all then? Jo Even ------=_Part_9096_21210388.1122115010586--