SWFObject libraries become two!
Once upon a time, there was a JS script for implementing Flash called FlashObject. When Adobe asked the author of the script to write an article on Devnet, they accompanied their request to another - to remove their Flash trademark from the name of its script. So FlashObject became SWFObject (the extension is not subject to copyright).
And then, unfortunately, another script appeared on the network for Flash injection , called SWFFix. Adobe didn’t like this name either -in English it turns out to “fix the SWF”, and in Adobe’s opinion it’s not broken. In short, change the name again nafig!
What did the creators of SWFFix decide? That's right, let's call SWFObject! Why? Because the script has the same name and meaning already, but it is version 1.5, and we will be SWFObject 2.0! And shustrenko released the first beta .
No, well, that's fine, eh?
In my opinion, similar games with titles have no right to be. And not so muchbecause of copyright and other nonsense. Without a code name does not cost anything.
Imagine that the world will bypass the news about the release of SWFObject 2.0 Final. Web technologists who used v.1.5, will rush to update their engines and frameworks, and ... As a result of the incompatibility of the namesake scripts at the application level, Flash on the updated sites simply ceases to be displayed. We'll have to rewrite the code in different parts (which can be problematic for large portals like everybody * Tube), having previously studied the documentation . How many nerves, how many emotions and how many losses. And all because SWFObject 2.0 is another library, another code from other authors!
UPD: It seems that the incompatibility is not so deep, but right away, out of the box, the new SWFObject on the old code will not work . The script calls themselves will have to be rewritten, but the alternative content and application area can be left unchanged.
UPD2: Understood . It turns out that Geoff Stearns, a Google Flash technologist (working on YouTube), and, part-time, the author of SWFObject 1.5, participates in the development of SWFObject 2.0. It is possible that the idea of ​​combining libraries and assigning a name belongs to him. It is possible that old methods will be introduced into the new library as aliases to new ones. The succession will be observed, then after a couple of versions they will convince everyone to switch to a new methodology.
Deep
And then, unfortunately, another script appeared on the network for Flash injection , called SWFFix. Adobe didn’t like this name either -
What did the creators of SWFFix decide? That's right, let's call SWFObject! Why? Because the script has the same name and meaning already, but it is version 1.5, and we will be SWFObject 2.0! And shustrenko released the first beta .
No, well, that's fine, eh?
In my opinion, similar games with titles have no right to be. And not so much
Imagine that the world will bypass the news about the release of SWFObject 2.0 Final. Web technologists who used v.1.5, will rush to update their engines and frameworks, and ... As a result of the incompatibility of the namesake scripts at the application level, Flash on the updated sites simply ceases to be displayed. We'll have to rewrite the code in different parts (which can be problematic for large portals like everybody * Tube), having previously studied the documentation . How many nerves, how many emotions and how many losses. And all because SWFObject 2.0 is another library, another code from other authors!
UPD: It seems that the incompatibility is not so deep, but right away, out of the box, the new SWFObject on the old code will not work . The script calls themselves will have to be rewritten, but the alternative content and application area can be left unchanged.
UPD2: Understood . It turns out that Geoff Stearns, a Google Flash technologist (working on YouTube), and, part-time, the author of SWFObject 1.5, participates in the development of SWFObject 2.0. It is possible that the idea of ​​combining libraries and assigning a name belongs to him. It is possible that old methods will be introduced into the new library as aliases to new ones. The succession will be observed, then after a couple of versions they will convince everyone to switch to a new methodology.
Deep
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/14720/
All Articles