Hi!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> But may be you also want to invest in the future ;)
> 
> this may interest you and has been published on the tweak mailing-list

Oh, wasn't aware there even was such a list. :)
  
> > What is the greater plan for Tweak Vs. Morphic, that is, would we want 
> > to have a Squeak version that comes with Tweak instead of MVC+Morphic?
> > I personally would like to see this happen as soon as possible...
> 
> Well, now that the proof of concept is complete we can look at the next 
> steps. Personally, I think (partial) victory could be declared once the 
> resulting image has no further obsolete references *AND* can reload and 
> run Morphic/MVC. This mostly means making the basic packages (Kernel, 
> Collections, Graphics, Compiler) Morphic/MVC clean by a) refactoring 
> methods (moving them in extensions) and b) introduce a few required 
> extra abstractions (for PopUpMenu, FITBM, and friends). For the latter, 
> I think that having something like a simple indirection ala "UIManager 
> default confirm: mumble" would be perfectly sufficient.

Yes, such a UIManager pattern was used in Stable Squeak btw - my article
describing that is still up:
	http://anakin.bluefish.se/sqworld

> Then, there is still the tools issue. As you may have noticed I haven't 
> put much work into getting the browsers up to par (simply a question of 
> priorities) but having good tool support is crucial. I wonder if I can 
> convince someone to get OmniBrowser or StarBrowser or any of those in 
> Tweak...

Hehe, well - how are the docs? :) I think that may matter.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

cheers, Göran