Are morphs the components of Squeak - a la JavaBeans?

Roel Wuyts roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Mar 26 17:24:06 UTC 2001


About the interface question: suppose we define an interface for
Smalltalk-beans (based on conventions of course, maybe the current Javabeans
interface can be used as inspiration for things to include/omit). Couldn't
this be enough to propel us already ahead ?

We could make a swiki page describing the interface, and we could try
writing components that adhere to this interface. Such components should be
interoperable. 


On 26/03/01 19:13, "Michael Rueger" <m.rueger at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Elzbieta Chludzinska wrote:
>> 
>> Is it reasonable to make an analogy between morphs and Java beans - Java's
>> components?  Is there a component framework for Squeak?
>> 
>> The reason I ask is I know it'll be asked during some presentations I'll be
>> making in my effort to "sell" Squeak for a project I'm working on.
> 
> If you want to be provocative you could state that every Object in
> Smalltalk is a Java Bean (reflectuve capabilities, late binding, default
> gui for parameters (inspector), ...)
> 
> Beans are not necessarily graphical components, so restricting the
> comparison to morphs is somewhat artificial anyway. Especially when used
> in the context of e.g. Java server pages Java beans are nothing more
> than objects with some reflective and late binding capabilites (e.g.
> properties).
> 
> In my understanding one thing is missing though in
> Smalltalk/Squeak/Morphic, and that is the definition of an interface
> definition (not meaning gui here!) (in the broadest possible sense).
> 
> Please don't let's start a war here over which is better, I'm just
> trying help with a "neutral" comparison. :-)
> 
> Michael





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list