Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>
> I didn't examined your Morphic 3 design precisely, but using a Display
> (as it currently represented in Squeak) is exactly what i'm against.
>   

Ok.

> It's like interacting with hardware directly, bypassing software drivers.
>   

Not at all. I did interact with hardware directly. The result is 
non-portable. Assuming the Display might have some limitations, but 
portability is not an issue.

> Display should represent a device with own set of capabilities. Canvas
> providing a generic abstract layer for interacting it. Morphs should
> use canvas , but assume nothing about existence of  Display or Printer
> or Whatever.
>   

Sure. Morphic 3 assumes Display. But not the morphs. Only the Canvas and 
rendering engine. Morphs only know about Canvas services. Writing the 
kinds of canvases you mention is perfectly possible.

> Otherwise, once you start using Display, soon it will become too tied
> together, and you start mixing things in one cup, just because you
> assuming that everything what you doing will be rendered using
> Display, so you starting care less about other devices/surfaces,
> limiting it and finally bury it down under heap of optimizations :)
>
>   

Sure.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich