Thinking about names and usage...
UserRequest (base class)
"Christoph proposed UserNotification, but notifications can be
dismissed easily, confirmations or choices should not be"
"Also Monticello and other packages already use *Request for the purpose"
InputRequest "accurate, but too general?"
Request "probably too general"
"contrast with WebRequest, for example"
"asynchronous/continuation style:"
(InputRequestSubclass signal)
eventually: [:response | ... ];
then: [:response | ...];
ifRejected:/ifCancelled: [...].
"handling:"
on: InputRequest do: [:request | request resume:/provide:/answer:/reply:/respond: whatever].
UserInformation signalWith: 'Looks ok'
"remains open whether this will be a modal popup or a message in some kind of notification area"
on: UserInformation do: [:info | info resume/dismiss/accept/continue "ok"]
"but it might also be information about (not for) a user"
UserNotification signalWith: 'This makes more sense to me here for inform:'.
"This is not really a request for information, only for acknowledgement"
UserConfirmation signal .... "strange because here we want to request confirmation, not give one"
UserConfirmation request: 'Does this look better?' "but signal is still inherited"
on: UserConfirmation do: [:confirm | "strange again because the confirmation is yet to be given or denied"]
UserConfirmRequest signal: 'This looks wordy even though it is already abbreviated'
UserConfirmRequest request: 'Double double words'.
UserConfirmRequest confirm: 'Double double, and the request shall confirm something??'
"can be circumvented with a UserConfirmation factory but then signalling and handling use different class names"
ConfirmationRequest signal: 'More letters, but looks nicer to me' trueChoice: #Agreed falseChoice: #Disagreed.
on: ConfirmationRequest do: [:request | request resume:/respond:/reply:/answer:/choose: #Agreeable].
on: ConfirmationRequest do: [:request | request confirm/deny].
"ConfirmationRequested also possible, but not a noun -- different style"
MultipleChoiceRequest signal: 'I think it is...' choices: #(Good Bad Done) labels: #(Yay Nay What)
"unfortunately the class name is already taken in RefactoringTools"
ChoiceRequest signal: 'shorter but maybe stranger?' choices: #(Yep Nope)
MultiResponseRequest signal: 'I like...' responses: #(Cats Dogs Squeak You)
"funnily the term 'multiple choice' implies a single answer from a set of many"
ConfirmationRequest "or others (see above) could also be a subclass of multiple choice"
ClassOrTraitRequest signal: 'Choose your request'.
(ClassOrTraitRequest fromPattern: '*Class*Request') signal: 'Other ideas?'
ClassifierRequest signal: 'Do you prefer UML-speak?'
DirectoryRequest signal: 'What kinds of other requests to/from/by/with/... a directory are there?'
DirectoryRequested signal: 'This might be less ambiguous'
File/Font/String/Text/Password/Credentials/ObjectRequest/ed signal: 'Likewise' initialAnswer: whatever.
"Makes me wonder whether UserRequest might imply that a user must be chosen
instead of requesting something from users"
XyzRequestedFromUser signal: 'More explicit purpose, but yet another naming style'
"Can there be a protocol to request a certain kind of object from the user
or would we really need one subclass for each kind?"
Xyz requestFromUser: 'Choose your Xyz...'.
on: Xyz input/userRequest do: [:request | ...].
InputRequest signal: 'Choose your object' ofKind: Xyz.
on: InputRequest do: [:request | (request acceptsA/n: Xyz) ifTrue: [...] ifFalse: [request pass]].
...
There is also ProgressInitiationException which does not have a nice name.
It is not a request, but it already has displayProgress:* in UIManager
as defaultAction.
Alternative names:
ProgressInitiation/ed
ProgressStart/ed
HI,
Unless there is a good reason why handling ProvideAnswerNotification
is not a good idea in scripted environments, I agree with Chris. I
would prefer using the existing mechanism to introducing a strange
synonym for Notification.
Swapping the control flow, like Christoph proposed (user code signals
the notification and defaultAction is the modal dialog), sounds ok to
me too. It would also mean that user code does not have to access the
UIManager singleton. On the other hand, it is less obvious whether
something is meant to be a UI interaction if the names of the
Notifications make the code strange to read. For the most basic cases,
at least there still is Object>>inform:/confirm:/confirm:orCancel:.
Kind regards,
Jakob
Am Mi., 26. Feb. 2020 um 22:41 Uhr schrieb Chris Muller <asqueaker@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
>> > especially for this one tiny little thing of a modal alert when renaming classes?
>>
>> It is a more general issue. There should be no UI invocation code in a non-UI part of the system. So, "Transcript showln:." is fine but "self inform:" is not. Why? Because those cannot be trapped in scripts, which is - for example - unfortunate in automated pipelines such as our CI.
>
>
> Actually, they can.
>
> "example 1"
> [ self inform: 'stop everything and pay attention to me!' ] on: ProvideAnswerNotification do: [ : noti | noti resume ] "nil"
>
> "example 2"
> [UIManager default request: 'what is the answer?' initialAnswer: 'tell me now!' ] on: ProvideAnswerNotification do: [ : noti | noti resume: 42 ] "42 "
>
> I assumed this is what the CI jobs were doing.. they're not?
>
> I totally share your sentiments about no UI invocation code in the domain, and is how I do my own designs, of course, but Squeak chose default to being an <<interactive system>>, and requires handlers of ProvideAnswerNotification to make it non-interactive, rather than the other way around.
>
> If you want to flip the above in 5.4 to the normal way -- signaling a kind of ProvideAnswerNotification whose defaultAction issues the modal popup -- then let's flip them, but it doesn't seem like we need a new layer of notification classes just yet. ProvideAnswerNotification may be sufficient.
>
> Best,
> Chris
>
>>
>>
>> > What happened to simply opening up a MessageSet on the references afterward?
>>
>> Still there. Unrelated to this issue. See the end of Browser >> #renameClass.
>>
>> > Say, why do we need a modal alert at all?
>>
>> I agree, that extra check in Class >> #rename: might not be necessary and maybe moved to our refactoring tools.
>>
>> Best,
>> Marcel
>>
>> Am 26.02.2020 00:21:48 schrieb Chris Muller <asqueaker@gmail.com>:
>>
>> -1. "Notice" is such a generic, common word to steal from all applications that might want to create their own, especially for this one tiny little thing of a modal alert when renaming classes? Say, why do we need a modal alert at all? What happened to simply opening up a MessageSet on the references afterward?
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:17 AM Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel@hpi.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just "Notice"?
>>>
>>> Am 25.02.2020 12:11:33 schrieb Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 25, 2020, at 1:40 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel@hpi.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed. BUT: Please take a look at
>>>
>>> Kernel-mt.1305
>>> Tools-mt.941
>>>
>>> We need a name! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On second thoughts Notice might be a better name.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> Am 25.02.2020 10:11:22 schrieb Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel@hpi.de>:
>>>
>>> > Maybe it is a sporadic issue?
>>>
>>> It is! Related to the ProgressNotification which I accidentially catch in Browser >> #renameClass. I wanted to get the UI call out of Class >> #rename:.
>>>
>>> That progress notification does not appear every time. Only above a certain threshold. That's why it appears to be sporadic.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> Am 25.02.2020 09:37:13 schrieb Thiede, Christoph <christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>>>
>>> I could reproduce it one single time ... Maybe it is a sporadic issue?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Taeumel, Marcel
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2020 09:34:03
>>> An: John Pfersich via Squeak-dev; Chris Muller
>>> Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] 5.3 cannot rename subclasses of Error
>>>
>>> Hmm... I can reproduce the bug. Yet, calling "Error2 rename: #Error1" from a workspace works fine. Strange.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> Am 25.02.2020 09:16:13 schrieb Thiede, Christoph <christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>
>>> in a fresh image, I cannot reproduce this. Are you sure the class has not been renamed or is it possible that the class list was not updated properly?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Chris Muller <asqueaker@gmail.com>
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Februar 2020 06:29:00
>>> An: squeak dev
>>> Betreff: [squeak-dev] 5.3 cannot rename subclasses of Error
>>>
>>> In trunk / 5.3 RC.
>>>
>>> - Make a subclass of Error called MyError1
>>> - Make a subclass of Error called MyError2
>>> - Delete MyError1
>>> - Try to rename MyError2 to MyError1
>>>
>>> The last step fails. No errors or debuggers, but the class is not renamed.
>>>
>>> Works in 5.2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>