[squeak-dev] [Ann] Cuis 3.2 is released

Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 17:35:48 UTC 2011


Levente

For the question at hand 'how to make SimpleMorphic' working this is
not necessary as a first step. But rather the question comes up: how
do we make sure SimpleMorphic has Toolbuilder support.

If that is successful then yes, we will have to think of moving the
toolbuilder-like part of Monticello to a category you proposet to name
'Monticello-Morphic' so that we can more easily adapt it to
SimpleMorphic and thus make Morphic unloable.

Or we might think of removing 'Monticello-Morphic' alltogether when
removing Morphic.

--Hannes

On 4/18/11, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18.04.2011, at 17:08, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/18/11 8:02 AM, "Hannes Hirzel" <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Edgar
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you for the added info and the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before we go further into this, let me ask first.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which way is it a problem that Morphic depends on Monticello?
>>>>
>>>> Monticello depends on Morphic as his code is today..
>>>> So, if in the future you wish get rid of Morphic and unload it and
>>>> instead
>>>> use other UI like SimpleMorphic , you must change all references to
>>>> Morphic
>>>> classes like MeNuMorph, AlignmentMorph, etc.
>>>
>>> Bert mentioned that MC was fully toolbuilderized, so this problem was
>>> solved. We should check that solution first IMHO.
>>
>> MC has both. If it detects ToolBuilder it uses that, otherwise it
>> constructs a Morphic UI on its own (incidentally using its own
>> toolbuilder-like framework).
>
> So we should either remove those parts, or move them to a new package, say
> Monticello-Morphic.
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list