On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Doug Way wrote:

>
> On Dec 20, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Michael Latta wrote:
>
>> Another source of this impression is that the system browser keeps 
>> breaking on me.  The bottom pane keeps getting messed up.  The scroll 
>> bars often stick out below the bottom of the window.  I had the 
>> browser get confused about the switching between one and two bottom 
>> panes.  At times there were 3 areas below the row of buttons, with 
>> scroll bars that overlapped.  Then when I selected a method, the text 
>> was in a pane that was the top 1/3 of the bottom area.  After loading 
>> a package recently the top set of lists and buttons disappeared.  The 
>> row of buttons can easily be resized to smaller than the buttons 
>> themselves, cutting them off.  I suspect the 3.7 browser is less 
>> stable because of the added comment pane for class selections (which 
>> I like a lot), has this gotten better in more recent versions?
>
> I haven't seen any of the problems you mention with the system browser 
> (except for the resizing of the buttons pane).  Can you get any of 
> those other bugs to happen consistently?

It is quite repeatable for me.  The bottom pane gets garbled pretty 
regularly.  When I get a chance, I will try to reproduce it with known 
steps in a clean image.

>
> I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that most of the instability 
> you're seeing is from installing a lot of different packages.  
> Unfortunately it's very easy to write a package which attempts to fix 
> bugs by overwriting a lot of methods, which then tends to cause lots 
> of breakage when the package gets out of date and is loaded into a 
> later version of Squeak.

I am using 3.7-5989-full.  It occurs in that image.  In my most recent 
exploring I have loaded only Aqua2 and Connectors2.

>
> I typically don't load more than a few packages in one image... and I 
> tend to stick with the packages that I know are safe.  (It's sometimes 
> useful to treat images as throwaways, it's easy to save multiple 
> copies of an image, or run multiple images at once, etc.  As opposed 
> to, say, most Java IDE's, which won't let you run more than one IDE at 
> a time, and it's a pretty big hassle to even save a backup.)

Let alone having enough RAM for running more than one!

>
> Also remember that the whole SqueakMap/packaging thing is still 
> relatively new... the "published" concept was only added a few months 
> ago for example, and there's no real dependency/configuration scheme 
> yet.  I think some of these issues will work themselves out 
> eventually.  For example, there may eventually be certain package 
> formats which are determined to be "safe" to load, at least in terms 
> of not directly conflicting with code in other packages.  These 
> formats may become more popular/favored as people discover they cause 
> fewer problems, etc.

Does the current MC format test for conflicts when overwriting a 
method?  If the packages I want are in that format, will it verify that 
loading into the current image is "safe" from a CM point of view?  If 
so I should start lobbying the authors of the packages I want to use 
that format.
>
> - Doug
>
>
>> On Dec 20, 2004, at 11:38 AM, Michael Latta wrote:
>>
>>> I tried loading Connectors, but it was not a good experience:
>>>
>>> 1) There was no published version for any Squeak version.
>>> 2) After saying take any version it could find, it was missing a 
>>> prerequisite.  Loading anyway only loaded code that was missing 
>>> other classes.
>>> 3) Assuming I did the wrong thing by going to SqueakMap, I went back 
>>> to the SqueakMap page and tried the home page link, only to be told 
>>> it did not exist.
>>>
>>> This is not a good testament for Squeak.  I do not know if it is 
>>> just a lot of undocumented magic tricks to make this work, or what.  
>>> I would really like to use Squeak, but it is getting harder and 
>>> harder to see it as anything more than a collection of unfinished 
>>> research projects.  Please help me correct this impression.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2004, at 2:13 AM, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/12/04 00:51, "Michael Latta" <lattam at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 4) Can I control the layering of morphs?
>>>> Yes, if for layering you means several moprphs is same place and 
>>>> what you
>>>> normally could grab the top morph.
>>>> Morphs add to anothers Morphs reverse, so try
>>>> | myColors container e |
>>>> myColors _ #('red' 'white' 'black' 'yellow' 'green').
>>>> container _ BorderedMorph new.
>>>> container extent: 100 at 100.
>>>> container openCenteredInWorld.
>>>> myColors do: [:layer| e _ EllipseMorph new.
>>>> e color: (Color fromString:  layer);center: container center.
>>>> container addMorph: e]
>>>>
>>>> The green Ellipse should be the only you see, but with halo click 
>>>> you could
>>>> access all .
>>>>
>>>>> 5) The squeak books at Amazon looked old (3.4 or so).  Is there a
>>>>> current reference that covers Morphic as it exists now?
>>>> The Mark Guzdial white book is 2.9 to 3.0 and only significative 
>>>> change was
>>>> envolve fron AlignmentMorph to TableLayout , but two still exists 
>>>> in 3.8.
>>>> So any Morphic from books could work with this change.
>>>> All problems what we have now is for other changes.
>>>>
>>>>> 6) Can I anchor a morph to the outside of another morph, or only 
>>>>> inside
>>>>> another morph?  If I want handles on a morph, do I need to place a
>>>>> parent morph to hold the handles and the morph being edited?
>>>> Yes. And if marvelous Connectors from Ned are too much , I have 
>>>> nice pet
>>>> projects what would share with you.
>>>>
>>>> Fell free to email private if you wish
>>>> Edgar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>