On Oct 1, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Martin Owens wrote:
While I'm not happy about using groups myself, it's certainly possible to use far less code and be consistent with a number of other functionalities. What I'm more unhappy about is creating a new data format which is inconsistent and wholly separate from what has gone before, this is going to lead to large amounts of code and maintenance headaches.
My proposal only requires that we make assumptions for editing. It follows existing rules which means that it invents nothing and doesn't add to the specification to be supported going forwards. It uses exactly what we'll have to support anyway, only the manner in which I've used it exotic.
I think the focus on editing is good here. We can leverage the same front-end code and glue it up to the back end of choice, perhaps flipping as needed.
Martin, Is there much code that can be shared that way, or is the UI hookup going to be dependent on group vs. point-on-path?
Of course I'm happy to use what ever approach is best overall, I'd like a few more arguments against groups before I dismiss the concept completely.
Groups are icky. At least in this case. :-)