Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends

jvuletich at jvuletich at
Thu Oct 26 13:01:12 UTC 2006

Hi Klaus,

> Concentrating on the remaining issue(s): why is it so important that
> Morphic must be independent of Etoys, are they (have they) subclasses etc
> of each other? Or are there political reasons for having such an
> independence, or license reasons? Or what (perhaps elegance, perhaps
> maintainability)?

Elegance and maintainability. Also to make it easier to use Morphic for
other purposes (for example, writing applications), that won't use eToys.

> If there isn't anybody suggesting that she/he will divide Morphic by
> Etoys, starting with 3.9 and targeting for example 3.10 or 4.0, then
> please treat these questions as 100%[tm] rhetoric, thank you.
> /Klaus

Well, In this very thread I said I have already done it in 3.7 (meaning I
showed that it can be done, that I can do it, and that you can check the
quality of my work). I also said I volunteer for doing it once more, in
the latest image, if the community wants to adopt it.

I also add here that I would remove only what the community wants removed.
I mean, Goran said recently he would like to keep Flaps in. Ok. If we can
decide what to remove and what to keep, I'll be happy to follow that

Note that I'm not volunteering to make eToys loadable back in. I already
said why.

So, you see, the question is not rethoric at all.

Juan Vuletich

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list