How to improve Squeak
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Jul 14 08:43:44 UTC 2004
Hi lex
finally somebody answers :)
The problems with projects is that you can get a lot of problems with
them. I tried to do some simple
extension of the navigator to be able to save and load automatically
some projects to build a demo from a textual description and this is
complex.... :(.
I used them for my previous demoes but a simple bookmorph that we could
save on a server
and with a simple way yo sort pages is definitively needed. So I think
that I will start to write one
by looking at BookMorph.
Stef
On 12 juil. 04, at 20:11, lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> My goodness, 38 posts and no one answered the question itself.
> Everyone
> is making plans and proprosing processes, but eventually someone needs
> to actually change the system you know. :)
>
> In short, BookMorph is old. It has bitrotted because not many people
> are using it and because its core functionality is now in a different
> part of the UI. Nowadays, projects are used as "pages" of a multi-page
> work. Instead of a BookMorph, we have project threads. Instead of a
> navigation bar, we have a navigation flap plus
> InternalNavigationMorph's. Resorting is still present, but you access
> it via InternalNavigationMorph instead of through the BookMorph
> toolbar.
>
> Because of this history, I don't see a particular reason to fix up
> BookMorph at all. This is not some random widget, but is designed to be
> a core part of the UI. The UI doesn't use it any more. Even if
> BookMorph is fixed up to work well in current Squeak's, it's feature
> set
> should surely be revisited because most of the stuff just doesn't make
> sense nowadays. And really, why does it need to be fixed up anyway?
> It is perfectly fine just to delete the thing or even just to mark the
> comment as "no longer supported, but present for historical interest".
>
>
> Now, my two cents on process is that this is a perfectly normal
> situation in a system that is supposed to have experimental stuff in
> it.
> We don't need any process; we just need someone who has some vision
> about the state of the whole image, to go through and if things like
> this. That seems to be happening, so what's the problem? If anything,
> my suggestion would be for individuals to start volunteering as
> stewards
> of the image(s); I don't expect that we can have an excellent image
> when
> every little change is made by committee. And if multiple people step
> forward, that's great too; we'll have multiple images that are all
> interesting.
>
>
>
> -Lex
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|