Am 09.02.2005 um 13:09 schrieb Avi Bryant:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:42:32 +0100, Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> 
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:38:05 -0800, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>> That's why I said to get these people into the same room and see what
>>> they need - if there's a need, there will be action. I know that
>>> (personally speaking) I would go with *any* approach which gives me 
>>> the
>>> tools back and I'm almost sure the wxSqueak guys would love it if a 
>>> new
>>> tool could just come up with a native UI.
>>>
>> Hear, hear. Well, about the getting into the same room - I'm still not
>> sure whether I'm happy about wxSqueak popping up its own browsers and
>> debuggers, but that should be a preference anyway.
>
> Along those lines - I'm not sure how wxSqueak handles this, but
> Seaside definitely needs  "UIManager default" to be some form of
> dynamic variable (process-local, or walk the stack), rather than a
> global.  I'm surprised Tweak doesn't need that too; don't you have
> cases where Morphic is running in one scope and Tweak in another, and
> you'd want to pop up the right dialog depending on where you were when
> you sent #inform:?

UIManager class>>default is currently overridden by Tweak:

default
	^Default ifNil:[
		self ifTweak:[TweakUIManager new] ifNot:[MorphicUIManager new].
	].

where #ifTweak looks at Processor activeProcess to determine if this is 
running in Tweak or not.

When more UI frameworks want to use this, the #default method could ask 
its subclasses or registered UIManagers if it wants to handle the 
request.

- Bert -