New setting structure: Difference between revisions
From Armagetron Advanced
Got to make a stub about this, but at least i finally started |
m add blueprint link |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Blueprint|settings}} | |||
Currently, settings are put together in a "flat" manner, ie. related settings are sometimes not grouped together, which causes confusion and eats children. If that was not enough, admin commands are mixed in, too, and it's soon going to be a real mess when scripting/modules/other becomes usable. This is why I think commands should be put away from settings (and that's why I wont be talking about admin commands here) and that settings should be organized in a better way. | Currently, settings are put together in a "flat" manner, ie. related settings are sometimes not grouped together, which causes confusion and eats children. If that was not enough, admin commands are mixed in, too, and it's soon going to be a real mess when scripting/modules/other becomes usable. This is why I think commands should be put away from settings (and that's why I wont be talking about admin commands here) and that settings should be organized in a better way. | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 21 September 2008
This wiki page has an associated Blueprint on launchpad.
Currently, settings are put together in a "flat" manner, ie. related settings are sometimes not grouped together, which causes confusion and eats children. If that was not enough, admin commands are mixed in, too, and it's soon going to be a real mess when scripting/modules/other becomes usable. This is why I think commands should be put away from settings (and that's why I wont be talking about admin commands here) and that settings should be organized in a better way.
Goals
- Structured settings tree (Give the rim(flat!) a break! Hug a tree instead!)
- Put a line between admin command and setting
- Ghost settings (allowing a setting to be set BEFORE it gets declared)
- nSettingItem backward compatibility
General concept overview
TODO
