Hi Ross -

Squeak 4.1 includes the Cuis editors and they are enabled by default. In 
Squeak 4.1 you can actually switch the editor to use (mostly just so 
that we have a fallback if something goes horribly wrong):

	"The old ParagraphEditor hierarchy"
	TextMorph defaultEditorClass: TextMorphEditor.

	"The Cuis editor hierarchy"
	TextMorph defaultEditorClass: SmalltalkEditor.

In other words, choosing the Cuis editors as the basis is exactly the 
right thing to do and should work in Squeak 4.1, 4.2 and Cuis.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 9/1/2010 10:16 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I've been working on some personal projects for which I'd like to use
> Magma and BobsUI.  Maui might be an alternative or supplement to BobsUI.
> Additionally I want to make an autocompletion widget.
>
> I would appreciate any advice or insights into the best way to combine
> these elements.  Broadly, the choices seem to be
> 1. Start with squeak 4.1 and attempt to modify the text editing system
> to match Cuis.  magma, maui (?) and bobsui all work in 4.1.  Work on
> autocompletion after merging in the Cuis changes.
>
> 2. Start with Cuis.  Attempt to load the other elements, updating them
> as necessary for compatibility.
>
> 3. Start with squeak 4.1.  Don't try to merge in Cuis, and build
> autocompletion within the existing text framework.
>
> For the autocompletion I'd much prefer to work with Cuis because of its
> simplified, pure-Morphic text widgets.  Squeak and the auto-completers
> in it for code have a hybrid approach in which most of the actual work
> happens in the old MVC code.  Even the latest released squeak, which
> incorporates some of the Cuis work (so that the interface classes are no
> longer subclasses of MVC), still uses mostly the old machinery (e.g.,
> Sensors).  I find the result overly complicated.
>
> There are reports of BobsUI loading into squeak 4.1 (4.0?), after
> adjusting for the text editor changes.  There is a report of magma
> loading (not necessarily working) into Cuis.
>
> BTW, the autocompletion I'm interested in is more like google search
> (completion operates within a list of words or phrases) than the
> e/ocompletion packages designed to complete smalltalk code.
>
> Options 1, 2, and 3 above all seem to involve considerable work, of
> unknown size.  The fact that the more recent Cuis work on text editing
> is not in mainline (AFAIK) suggests the merge is not trivial(*) (1 is
> hard).
>
> But Cuis doesn't support any advanced packaging scheme, and so loading
> things like magma and bobsui into it may also be a challenge (2 is
> hard).  The difficulty of loading other packages into Cuis is two-fold.
> First, if package x is in a package of type y (e.g., Monticello), and
> Cuis doesn't have y, that could be a problem.  Second, assuming one can
> get the code into the image, the differences between Cuis and regular
> squeak  may require further code changes in the code of x itself.
>
> I know 3 (just use squeak and the existing text framework) is hard,
> since that was the original route I took.
>
> If anyone has any info, or even sense, of the work involved in the
> different alternatives, I would love to hear it.
>
> Thanks.
> Ross Boylan
>
> (*) However, perhaps it is simply on hold pending the general review of
> how to incorporate Cuis work into mainline squeak that other threads
> have discussed.
>
>
>