Extension based on Sound Extension

[Sven Anderson]

I've created a music extension based on the Sound Extension.  Being new to extension building, I began with the original Sound extension and built on top of it.  Now that I'd like to make the extension public, I'm wondering what the proper approach should be. 

1. I could make my extension import the Sound extension and call its methods as needed.

2. I could simply use my extension "as is", though it includes significant code from the original and probably all of its functionality.

3. I could make my extension completely independent.  In practice, a user might want to combine Sound procedures with Music procedures, which means Sound would have to be rewritten to interact with Music.  For example, my Music extension uses an audio buffer which was not the approach of the original Sound extension.

4. ???

Thanks!

[Michael Tamillow]

How much are you planning on maintaining it? How well is the sound extension maintained? 

If the answer is "I am not planning on maintaining it well", I would say #2, with comments. I don't see how #3 is that different from #2. I would say #1 is the ideal programming model but you'd want to make it easy to install both extensions for users. #4 is a great idea!.. But I wouldn't know how to implement it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "netlogo-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to netlogo-deve...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netlogo-devel/3aca9a7d-df6e-4e81-82bf-3ad2fd47dbc0o%40googlegroups.com.