> thoughts?

Yes. There is only one way in which this makes sense: Remove the Morphic 
and MVC code from the tools substituting it with the appropriate 
ToolBuilder versions. It is pointless to no end to leave the Morphic 
code in there and to optionally test for ToolBuilder existence - after 
all if the point is to make the tools interface agnostic why keep 
Morphic hardcoded?

Also, the ToolBuilder-Specs package needs to be dissolved in the 
process. It was never my intention to have it as a separate package (it 
makes no sense whatsoever); it was merely the need to put this code 
somewhere and not having access to 
whatever-the-process-for-getting-stuff-into-the-image is.

By the end of the day this means making all of the tools depend on 
ToolBuilder - but hey, that was the idea, wasn't it? ;-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Brian Brown wrote:
> 
> On Jun 17, 2005, at 12:45 AM, goran at krampe.se wrote:
> 
>>
>> http://swiki.krampe.se/castaways/5  (search down to "ToolBuilder")
>>
>>
>>
>> Great job!
>>
>> I am interested in hearing more about how this integration ideally
>> should be done. Remember - we don't want to just add stuff to the  image
>> - we need to try to think as much as possible in "packages" here.
>>
> 
> This certainly bears discussion :-)
> 
> We have a simple API that abstracts the gui toolkit currently in use  
> (Morphic, Tweak, etc)  from the Tools being rendered (Monticello  
> brower, Omni Browser, Squeak Map).
> 
> So do we make ToolBuilder a package, and have all the core tools  check 
> to see if the package is loaded, use it if it exists, and  default to 
> Morphic if it doesn't?
> 
> Our change sets already make modifications to those tools, changing  
> them to use ToolBuilder, so then the ToolBuilder maintainer would  need 
> to track the core Tools and keep changes up to date as those  tools evolve.
> 
> This scenario doesn't seem ideal to me, but I could be missing  
> something. If ToolBuilder (which is quite small) was part of the  image, 
> then it becomes the defacto API for dealing with prompts,  dialogs, 
> menus, etc.
> 
> Of course, if all the core tools are packages that depend on the  
> ToolBuilder package, then the problem goes away...
> 
> :-)
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
>> regards, Göran
>>
>>
> 
> 
>