Hi brian

to help you getting your work in 3.9 as soon as it is ok for you, I  
would like to know
on which version you are working. We started to clean the 3.9 stream  
and restarted
from 3.8 final but I do not really know the current status. So if you  
want to prepare
some changes please take 3.8, change the version and do an upload  
changes.
Then you should get access to the stream and publish all your changes  
there.

Stef



On 17 juin 05, at 19:57, 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>