Hi Bert,

ahh, this was for stupid me! Great, now (I hope :) I got it.

So it's about Juan's work (which perhaps can be combined with Pavel's  
work, somehow, or perhaps not: who knows).

For me the speculation now has and end. All that remains is, I will wait  
for the respective announcement(s), they both will want us to test their  
good work.

And I'm happy to see that Edgar offered his support to Juan.

Thank you all for the constructive conversation, may the fruits follow!

/Klaus

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:57:38 +0200, Bert wrote:

> Am 26.10.2006 um 14:48 schrieb Klaus D. Witzel:
>
>> 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)?
>
> Etoys support is in the Morphic base classes, and even in its design -  
> Morphic really only was made to support Etoys. Now, if you want a lean  
> clean Morphic that just supports "business widgets" you have to rip  
> everything related to Etoys out. I think that's what Juan did - but  
> since the base is missing you cannot go back.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>