> > How much freedom do we have? Marking it public is fine, using a getter is > fine, adding a setter is fine as well. > > What about adding the effect instances to the effectsPlaying property on > EffectManager.effectStart() method? Would that have any adverse effect? If > it did we could refactor effectsPlaying to triggerEffectsPlaying and use > effectsPlaying for normal effects (or normal and trigger) so the names > matche the descriptions. > > We could also dispatch an effectStart and effectEnd event from the > EffectManager class. Doing both would solve the problem of tracking > effects. >
Haha, now we'll enter into an interesting API discussion potentially ;) Exposing the insides of the framework is not always preferable because you open yourself up to modification that is not always wanted. (well, its never wanted I guess, open to extension, closed to modification, anyone?) Exposing certain innards might get you into trouble when evolving the SDK. Once you make something public its not easy to go back in a later version. If the property really just needs to be public for tracking usage, then I believe what Jude suggest about dispatching an event sounds like an elegant solution to me... Just my 2 cents... Roland
