[squeak-dev] Re: MVC debugging
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Sep 10 07:22:17 UTC 2010
On 9/9/2010 11:34 PM, Florin Mateoc wrote:
> On 9/10/2010 1:55 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Sure. One thing I'm not sure about is this terminateActive: thingie. I don't like to expose a concept that is only
>> applicable to MVC via the ToolBuilder APIs. So I'm wondering - poking in MVC it appears that the only difference
>> between those xxxNoTerminate and the other variants are simply a call to Processor terminateActive. If that's the
>> case, I think we should push these calls to the senders instead of exposing them via ToolBuilder. Any reason that
>> wouldn't work?
>
> Yes. The common case is open (the one that needs terminating the active process), not openNoTerminate, which is limited
> to the debugger. This means that you would push those calls in a lot of places, plus they would need to be guarded by
> unseemly checks if you are in morphic or not
Thanks for the info. Could we maybe turn this around along the lines of,
say:
[ScheduledControllers scheduleActive: aController] fork.
i.e., forking in the case where terminating the controller isn't desirable?
BTW, (showing my lack of MVC knowledge) I'm not sure I understand the
issue to begin with. Why is it that for "regular" views it's okay to
terminate the active process, but not for the debugger? We don't seem to
be having such issues with Morphic, but we *do* call
Project>>spawnNewProcessIfThisUI: etc. Could we possibly utilize this
hook to fork a proper controller process in MVC? I'm obviously missing
something big time here, so bear with me and my stoopid questions :-)
Cheers,
- Amndreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|