<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">I think getting back to the original plan of harmonizing the duplications of the small LSL-C# wrappers and finishing the balance of the LSL-C# wrappers is important. <br><br>I just added up the number of occurences of "NotImplemented" in both the LSL_BuiltIn_Commands.cs and LSL_Api.cs files. There are 76 NotImplemented in LSL_Api.cs and 84 NotImplemented in LSL_Api.cs. <br><br>So, we have 76 to go to finish the original list of 328 or so functions. In my opinion, we need to press forward in finishing these functions and patches to LSL_BuiltIn_Commands.cs *and* LSL_Api.cs will be gratefully appreciated and expeditiously applied.<br><br>Eventually we will solve the duplicated files in one way or another, but continuing to finish the 76 or so remaining will help us get to a major plateau in our scripting
support.<br><br>Charles<br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Justin Clark-Casey <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:jjustincc@googlemail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:jjustincc@googlemail.com">jjustincc@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Sean Dague wrote:<br>
> Justin Clark-Casey wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Alright, having read all this, I propose that we don't either deprecate<br>
>> DotNetEngine or stop it being the default at this time.<br>
>><br>
>> Kurt, it would be good if you could go ahead with the refactoring to<br>
>> eliminate the existing code duplication. Is there any way at all to<br>
>> split the changes into smaller patches so that we can look to get<br>
>> something in within the week and possibly so that other hands can<br>
>> complete the job?<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Honestly, it's a lot of work to do that, especially as it is a<br>
> constantly changing field, and I really don't think anyone is going to<br>
> vest more time into it. There is no real payoff in investing in Dot Net<br>
> Engine anymore from my perspective.<br>
><br>
><br></div></div>Disregarding anything else, isn't there still a case for making sure<br>
that all scripting engines (current and future) can use the lsl command<br>
wrappers that would be common to any engine implementation?<br><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
justincc<br></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" target="_blank" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>===================================<br>The wind<br>scours the earth for prayers<br>The night obscures them<br><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://osgrid.org">http://osgrid.org</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://del.icio.us/SPQR">http://del.icio.us/SPQR</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/jstallings2">http://twitter.com/jstallings2</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49</a><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>