[UI] ToolBuilder

[Gary Chambers]

I'd lik to re-engineer some of the basics before they get to Morphic. The
state-of-play with the VMs are sufficient to provide a better low-level
baseline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jason Johnson
> Sent: 09 September 2007 7:18 pm
> To: Squeak's User Interface
> Subject: Re: [UI] ToolBuilder
> 
> 
> Sure, if we build up an MVP framework we can certainly use 
> Morphic for the view.  That's not a problem.  We can also let 
> the user decide. They can make the model objects and the 
> presenters and then they can provide multiple views:  a 
> native host view, a morphic view, and old MVC style view and so on.
> 
> On 9/9/07, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Persnoally I'd like a clean framework, a  GUI builder (that 
> stores as 
> > code - hence versionable etc. using existing tools) and a framework 
> > that still allows traditional Morphic. All possible.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > [mailto:ui-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jason 
> > > Johnson
> > > Sent: 09 September 2007 5:08 pm
> > > To: Squeak's User Interface
> > > Subject: Re: [UI] ToolBuilder
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to clarify what I meant:  It just seems to me that 
> Morphic is 
> > > quite complex.  If this complexity isn't buying us 
> something special 
> > > that no other system has then I think we should consider 
> dropping it 
> > > (or fix it if it's fixable).
> > >
> > > On 9/9/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 9/9/07, Bill Schwab <BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Jason,
> > > > >
> > > > > I respectfully submit that you are indeed off base :)
> > > >
> > > > I can accept that, I'm by no means an export.  But 
> where am I off 
> > > > base?  If I can't find that out I can't correct my 
> misconceptions. 
> > > > What I read in your argument was basically "Morphic is what
> > > we have".
> > > > That is valid, but if we are considering making the
> > > definitive UI for
> > > > Squeak I think we need to get off to the right foot, or at
> > > least know
> > > > what it is.
> > > >
> > > > Your point about wanting a builder is certainly valid, but
> > > we can have
> > > > that for any View framework we build.  If Morphic isn't a
> > > fit lets at
> > > > least plan to drop it for something that is.  I appreciate
> > > someone put
> > > > a lot of work in coming up with Morphic and people have put
> > > in effort
> > > > bringing it to Squeak, but the point of experimenting is to
> > > be able to
> > > > say "well, it didn't work".
> > > >
> > > > And I also agree about Tweak.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and I'm up for doing what I can to build MVP from the
> > > ground up. I
> > > > think it's the right thing to do.
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > UI mailing list
> > > UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > UI mailing list
> > UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
> >
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>