Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: About AMF (Techical)

[Rob Savoye]

strk wrote:

> By self-contained I mean SWF files that can be run with a flash player
> and unambiguosly tell whether the SWF file is working as expected or not.

  Right, but I also really like unit level tests. Running all test code 
in a full flash interpreter can create problems that aren't really 
there. The best testing includes both unit tests (like libamf.all or 
libnet.all), and integration tests, like running a swf test case through 
the interpreter. (like SharedObject.as and LocalConnection.as)

> There's none indeed, we'll need to add one, but if we work 
> on self-contained ones, automatically whatever is used will be tested,
> be it element-based or buffer-based. It'd be a detail.

  My point is test cases are important, more so than things like 
comments in the code.

> I'm not saying Element-based stuff is broken, just not necessarely
> convenient to use (and most likely unable to deal with circular refs).

  Please don't be so hung up on circular references. I have some ideas 
on handling them, but I plan to wait till I see REFERENCE AMF types used 
in the wild. Breaking SharedObject.as is not the same when it comes to 
picking ones priorities...

> That'd be a great step forward.

  Well, if we can stop bitching about AMF and RTMP, I could get done 
what I need to so I can get back to Cygnal.

        - rob -