Long live Widgetry
Locked
123
123
 
|
Yes, I was in shock
and felt betrayed by the move of Cincom Smalltalk product management (CSPM). For
the last two days I was seriosly depressed and didnt know what to do. I do
apologize for my sarcastic posting and hope that it didnt hurt
anybody.
Now, after
assessing my options I have come to the following
conclusions:
1. There will
be no significant improvements for the UI framework in
VisualWorks for the foreseeable future.
As Jim stated:
"your existing UI tools and applications will continue to work,
and will not need to be migrated". If we choose to believe CSPM this time,
the main reason for dropping Widgetry is to avoid having customers to change
their code. Therefore, no significant changes will happen since any improvements
to the framework which requires any code change for the customers will be off
limits.
Sure, I
believe CSPM that they *now* want to have improvements happening in
the tools - a dockable status bar for the refactoring browser is nice;
SmallSpotlight is nice (and makes a couple of menu items obsolete), better icons
are nice and there is probably more... But all of this has nothing to do
with the framework and its use for programming UIs for applications. I do
predict that there will be
- no improvements to
existing widgets (all the overrides of customers would break and they have to
change their code: OFF LIMITS)
- no announcements
for existing widgets (same reason as above: OFF LIMITS)
- no clean up or
refactoring (same reason: OFF LIMITS).
Maybe we will see
widgets ported back from Widgetry (most notable: the Grid), but it will not
replace the existing DataSet or TableView (see above: OFF LIMITS), but will be
just another kid on the block.
I think that this
point is a valid assessment. But I also guess that CSPM will have
objections to it for marketing reasons. Then, please tell us what you mean
by saying "Improvements to the framework itself - many of the known issues
in the underlying UI libraries will be incrementally addressed". Which specific
issues will be addressed? And when?
A last remark (for
this point) on incremental improvements. As attractive this may sound (from a
strategic point of view) and is in reality for many things, not everything can
be done this way. Radically new frameworks or designs are essentially
all-or-nothing kind of projects. Smalltalk itself could never be developed by
incrementally improving C.
2. Nowhere else to
go.
- Dolphin is
dead
- VA is even worse
when it comes to the UI
- ObjectStudio
never attracted me
The above also
have the problem that they use native widgets, which I dont like too much,
because for any elaborated things I sooner rather than later hit the API
wall which doesnt allow me to do the tweaking I want.
- Squeak and the
other smaller Smalltalks are not ready for commercial
development
- moving away from
Smalltalk would be just so painful, that I cannot imagine doing so -
not even for a far superior UI framework.
I still like
VisualWorks as, in my personal opinion, the best commercial Smalltalk available
and I really wish to stay with it. Unfortunately, as we learn from Jims infamous 9/11 announcement, there is now a distinction between the
good and the bad customers. The good ones are those where Cincom knows their
best interest... Unfortunately, I dont belong to this group (but I am
just a small potato anyway). Too bad - up to 9/11 I had the feeling
that CSPM would also have my interests in mind.
These two points
were driving me nuts over the last two days - trapped with no good options at
hand.
But now my outrage
has calmed down and I see the solution: I will use Widgetry!
Widgetry is there,
it is real, fully functional and far superior than anything to
be expected from Cincom in the next, say, 5 years. Now point 1
doesnt look bad anymore. In fact it is a blessing that nothing will happen,
because there will be no disruptions for future Widgetry work. Since Widgetry
was developed from scratch, it only depends on very few things of the old
stuff. Also Cincom stopped all development on Widgetry, so there will be no
back porting necessary for newer versions. Basically I am free to use
and improve Widgetry for my projects.
Of course, this
would be even better if other people would join in to create a Widgetry
community which coordinates and consolidates the effort. For Cincom
customers (and I intend to stay and hope that I will not be thrown out) and
people doing non-commercial work there is no problem. All the code is there
(even in the preview of the product) and there is loads of documentation from
Sames.
There are some
questions to CSPM though:
1. Will
Cincom open-source Widgetry? (there has been no word on it and I
suppose the answer is no)
2. Would Cincom
sell Widgetry and for what price? (as Widgetry is useless to Cincom, I would
happily pay a symbolic dollar for it)
3. Will Widgetry be
able to stay in the Public Repository, so that the community can work on it
there?
4. Do the
postings of Sames to the vw-dev list still fall under the
Non-disclosue-agreement or can they be public?
5. Would Cincom
object such a move? Are there any legal issues forbidding the use of Widgetry
for VW customers?
Cincom announced
that it will not support Widgetry and Sames is, unfortunately, busy
elsewhere.
But, yes, I am open for business! (contact
data are below). :-)
I,
therefore, announce that I will proudly provide
Widgetry support for Cincom Smalltalk customers who want to use the best
available UI framework for VisualWorks.
A last word to
Sames. As bad and disappointing this has been for any of us outside of
Cincom, you are probably the one hardest hit. I feel very sorry for
you!
In my opinion,
Widgetry is a masterpiece! I could not imagine that anybody would have the
ability and stamina to develop a complete UI framework from scratch which
actually works. You earned a very prominent place in the Smalltalk hall of fame
(at least in mine). I know that it must have been hard at times, but you pulled
it through. My deepest respect for this great achievement!
Of course, I do
have my issues with some of the coding and designs, but these are minor
points. I do agree very much with the ambition and the
result.
(well, thats not
much help, is it? ;-)
Cheers,
Christian
Long live
Widgetry!
Smalltalked Visuals GmbH
HRG: 21 HRB 13400 Amtsgericht Wiesbaden
Geschäftsführer: Christian
Haider Luxemburgplatz 3
65185 Wiesbaden, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0611) 30 31 47
Fax: +49 (0611) 30 31
43
Mobile:
+49 (0170) 1880 250 |
Open sourceing Widgetry - was RE: Long live Widgetry
|
|
The Widgetry source is already available
and can be freely used and modifed within a VW image, subject of
course to normal Cincom licenses. So, unless you are concerned
about porting Widgetry to another smalltalk, it would seem to me
that anyone is free to update Widgetry as a community effort without any
additional pronouncement from Cincom. Terry From: Christian Haider
[mailto:[hidden email]] Yes, I was in shock and felt betrayed by the move of Cincom
Smalltalk product management (CSPM). For the last two days I was seriosly
depressed and didnt know what to do. I do apologize for my sarcastic posting
and hope that it didnt hurt anybody. Now, after assessing my options I have come to the
following conclusions: 1. There will be no significant improvements for
the UI framework in VisualWorks for the foreseeable future. As Jim stated: "your existing UI tools and
applications will continue to work, and will not need to be migrated". If
we choose to believe CSPM this time, the main reason for dropping Widgetry
is to avoid having customers to change their code. Therefore, no significant
changes will happen since any improvements to the framework which requires any
code change for the customers will be off limits. Sure, I believe CSPM that they *now* want to have
improvements happening in the tools - a dockable status bar for the refactoring
browser is nice; SmallSpotlight is nice (and makes a couple of menu items
obsolete), better icons are nice and there is probably more... But all of this
has nothing to do with the framework and its use for programming UIs for
applications. I do predict that there will be - no improvements to existing widgets (all the overrides of
customers would break and they have to change their code: OFF LIMITS) - no announcements for existing widgets (same reason as
above: OFF LIMITS) - no clean up or refactoring (same reason: OFF LIMITS). Maybe we will see widgets ported back from Widgetry
(most notable: the Grid), but it will not replace the existing DataSet or
TableView (see above: OFF LIMITS), but will be just another kid on the block. I think that this point is a valid assessment. But I also
guess that CSPM will have objections to it for marketing reasons. Then,
please tell us what you mean by saying "Improvements to the
framework itself - many of the known issues in the underlying UI libraries will
be incrementally addressed". Which specific issues will be addressed? And
when? A last remark (for this point) on incremental improvements.
As attractive this may sound (from a strategic point of view) and is in reality
for many things, not everything can be done this way. Radically new frameworks
or designs are essentially all-or-nothing kind of projects. Smalltalk itself
could never be developed by incrementally improving C. 2. Nowhere else to go. - Dolphin is dead - VA is even worse when it comes to the UI - ObjectStudio never attracted me The above also have the problem that they use native
widgets, which I dont like too much, because for any elaborated things I sooner
rather than later hit the API wall which doesnt allow me to do
the tweaking I want. - Squeak and the other smaller Smalltalks are not ready for
commercial development - moving away from Smalltalk would be just so
painful, that I cannot imagine doing so - not even for a far superior UI
framework. I still like VisualWorks as, in my personal opinion, the
best commercial Smalltalk available and I really wish to stay with it.
Unfortunately, as we learn from Jims infamous 9/11 announcement, there is
now a distinction between the good and the bad customers. The good ones are
those where Cincom knows their best interest... Unfortunately, I dont belong to
this group (but I am just a small potato anyway). Too bad - up to 9/11 I
had the feeling that CSPM would also have my interests in mind. These two points were driving me nuts over the last two
days - trapped with no good options at hand. But now my outrage has calmed down and I see the solution:
I will use Widgetry! Widgetry is there, it is real, fully functional and far
superior than anything to be expected from Cincom in the
next, say, 5 years. Now point 1 doesnt look bad anymore. In fact it is a
blessing that nothing will happen, because there will be no disruptions for
future Widgetry work. Since Widgetry was developed from scratch, it only
depends on very few things of the old stuff. Also Cincom stopped all
development on Widgetry, so there will be no back porting necessary for newer
versions. Basically I am free to use and improve Widgetry for my
projects. Of course, this would be even better if other people would
join in to create a Widgetry community which coordinates and consolidates the
effort. For Cincom customers (and I intend to stay and hope that I will
not be thrown out) and people doing non-commercial work there is no
problem. All the code is there (even in the preview of the product) and there
is loads of documentation from Sames. There are some questions to CSPM though: 1. Will Cincom open-source Widgetry? (there has been
no word on it and I suppose the answer is no) 2. Would Cincom sell Widgetry and for what price? (as
Widgetry is useless to Cincom, I would happily pay a symbolic dollar for it) 3. Will Widgetry be able to stay in the Public Repository,
so that the community can work on it there? 4. Do the postings of Sames to the vw-dev list still
fall under the Non-disclosue-agreement or can they be public? 5. Would Cincom object such a move? Are there any legal
issues forbidding the use of Widgetry for VW customers? Cincom announced that it will not support Widgetry and
Sames is, unfortunately, busy elsewhere. But, yes, I am open for business! (contact data
are below). :-) I, therefore, announce that I will proudly provide
Widgetry support for Cincom Smalltalk customers who want to use the best
available UI framework for VisualWorks. A last word to Sames. As bad and disappointing this has
been for any of us outside of Cincom, you are probably the one
hardest hit. I feel very sorry for you! In my opinion, Widgetry is a masterpiece! I could not
imagine that anybody would have the ability and stamina to develop a
complete UI framework from scratch which actually works. You earned a very
prominent place in the Smalltalk hall of fame (at least in mine). I know that
it must have been hard at times, but you pulled it through. My deepest respect
for this great achievement! Of course, I do have my issues with some of the coding and
designs, but these are minor points. I do agree very much with the
ambition and the result. (well, thats not much help, is it? ;-) Cheers, Christian Long live Widgetry! Smalltalked Visuals GmbH HRG: 21 HRB 13400 Amtsgericht Geschäftsführer: Christian Haider Luxemburgplatz 3 65185 Tel.: +49 (0611) 30 31 47 Fax: +49 (0611) 30 31 43 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Christian Haider
The need for
customers to make a significant change to their code was a major issue,
yes. It was not the only one though. Widgetry was under development
for 6 years before any effort was made to build tools or applications in
it. This was a large mistake on our part, and one that won't be made
again.
It is possible to
make significant improvements to the UI frameworks without a complete migration
to something new. You'll start to see improvements fairly quickly.
Bear in mind that no real changes have been made to the UI framework for
<years>. During the Parc/Digitalk merger, the VW UI was abandoned,
and when the Jigsaw effort failed, the remaining team had no UI members left on
it. Thus the UI stagnated.
When the decision
to create Widgetry was made, no thought went into making changes to the UI, as
"Pollock was coming". All work in that direction was frozen, as we
waited. Plenty could have been done, plenty should have been done.
Now, plenty will be done.
The text below is
incorrect about changes being off limits, btw. Evolution of the existing
code base may require changes, but the key thing is this: it will require
relatively small changes over time, instead of a huge change all at once.
For an example, look at the NetClients code in VW. I can speak to this one
personally, having used the code extensively over the last few years (Silt,
BottomFeeder). With each new release since VW 7, I've had to make minor
changes to my code. They were all documented though, and all minor.
I didn't have to drop all of my HTTP handling code and start over - I had to
aplpy a change over here, a modification over there.
The difference
between what would have happened with Widgetry and what is hapening now is the
difference between revolutionary change and evolutionary change. Change
there will be, but it will not be massive and all at once.
As to Widgetry, we
do not plan to open source it. However, it will stay in the Public Store
repository, and you (or any customer) is free to use it on an 'as is'
basis.
1. There will
be no significant improvements for the UI framework in
VisualWorks for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
From our point of view, the new approach is better (evolving changes to
wrapper) because of our very heavy UI
investment, including our own customizations for finer widget control. I do understand the pain of those who have already invested time in widgetry and that is unfortunate and if I had I too would be more upset than I am. I will continue to support this decision so long as wrapper does continue to evolve and I don't see any cincom history that says it won't -- jim pointed out why changes have not been made in the last few years -- so lets at least give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. James Robertson wrote:
-- Dennis Smith +1 416.798.7948 Cherniak Software Development Corporation Fax: +1 416.798.0948 509-2001 Sheppard Avenue East [hidden email] Toronto, ON M2J 4Z8 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="sip:dennis@CherniakSoftware.com">sip:dennis@... Canada http://www.CherniakSoftware.com Entrance off Yorkland Blvd south of Sheppard Ave east of the DVP |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
On 13/09/2007, James Robertson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As to Widgetry, we do not plan to open source it. However, it will stay in > the Public Store repository, and you (or any customer) is free to use it on > an 'as is' basis. While this sounds clear, in practice it is not. Do people who invest time in Widgetry have a guaranteed right to keep on using it? Do they have the right to distribute it? Do they have the right to sell a product with Widgetry inside it? Even if all these are yes, due diligence requires that people seek a statement defining what permission they have with respect to Cincom copyright in writing ... which is, of course, just what a license is. FWIW I would suggest going with something like the GPL (not the LGPL) because this would make it clear what people could do and would also make it clear what people may not do. You could then follow the MySQL model and offer a commercial license for those who had a business model that would not work with the GPL. No matter what is chosen it needs to be clearer than "an as-is bases from the public Store" which is as clear as mud, and as dangerous as quicksand. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
no, as I see it it is *not* "clear as mud" (Jim, please correct me if I am wrong!):
anybody who has a Cincom Smalltalk license is allowed to use Widgetry under the license termns he has. This of course does not allow porting to other dialects but usage for his projects/products is ok. But of course he cannot call Cincom Support for fixing problems. Maintenance and enhancements have to be carried on his own. Cheers Helge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Bruce Badger [mailto:[hidden email]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2007 16:20 An: Robertson, James Cc: [hidden email] Betreff: Re: Re :Long live Widgetry On 13/09/2007, James Robertson <[hidden email]> wrote: > As to Widgetry, we do not plan to open source it. However, it will > stay in the Public Store repository, and you (or any customer) is free > to use it on an 'as is' basis. While this sounds clear, in practice it is not. Do people who invest time in Widgetry have a guaranteed right to keep on using it? Do they have the right to distribute it? Do they have the right to sell a product with Widgetry inside it? Even if all these are yes, due diligence requires that people seek a statement defining what permission they have with respect to Cincom copyright in writing ... which is, of course, just what a license is. FWIW I would suggest going with something like the GPL (not the LGPL) because this would make it clear what people could do and would also make it clear what people may not do. You could then follow the MySQL model and offer a commercial license for those who had a business model that would not work with the GPL. No matter what is chosen it needs to be clearer than "an as-is bases from the public Store" which is as clear as mud, and as dangerous as quicksand. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
Helge is correct - the terms of usage are as he states them.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nowak, Helge" <[hidden email]> To: "Bruce Badger" <[hidden email]>; "Robertson, James" <[hidden email]> Cc: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: AW: Re :Long live Widgetry > no, as I see it it is *not* "clear as mud" (Jim, please correct me if I am > wrong!): > > anybody who has a Cincom Smalltalk license is allowed to use Widgetry > under the license termns he has. This of course does not allow porting to > other dialects but usage for his projects/products is ok. But of course he > cannot call Cincom Support for fixing problems. Maintenance and > enhancements have to be carried on his own. > > Cheers > Helge > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Bruce Badger [mailto:[hidden email]] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2007 16:20 > An: Robertson, James > Cc: [hidden email] > Betreff: Re: Re :Long live Widgetry > > On 13/09/2007, James Robertson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> As to Widgetry, we do not plan to open source it. However, it will >> stay in the Public Store repository, and you (or any customer) is free >> to use it on an 'as is' basis. > > While this sounds clear, in practice it is not. > > Do people who invest time in Widgetry have a guaranteed right to keep on > using it? > > Do they have the right to distribute it? > > Do they have the right to sell a product with Widgetry inside it? > > Even if all these are yes, due diligence requires that people seek a > statement defining what permission they have with respect to Cincom > copyright in writing ... which is, of course, just what a license is. > > FWIW I would suggest going with something like the GPL (not the LGPL) > because this would make it clear what people could do and would also make > it clear what people may not do. You could then follow the MySQL model > and offer a commercial license for those who had a business model that > would not work with the GPL. > > No matter what is chosen it needs to be clearer than "an as-is bases from > the public Store" which is as clear as mud, and as dangerous as quicksand. > > Best regards, > Bruce > -- > Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nowak, Helge
On 13/09/2007, Nowak, Helge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> no, as I see it it is *not* "clear as mud" (Jim, please correct me if I am wrong!): > > anybody who has a Cincom Smalltalk license is allowed to use Widgetry under the license termns he has. This of course does not allow porting to other dialects but usage for his projects/products is ok. But of course he cannot call Cincom Support for fixing problems. Maintenance and enhancements have to be carried on his own. The thing is, there are lots of things in the public Store. They are all licensed in different ways. Just being in the public Store does not bestow a license on a bit of software, only the copyright holder can do that. So if you guys are saying the Widgetry is under the VWNC license, then fine - that answers my question. Thanks. But is that really the case? Because it's not true for Glorp, for example. Glorp is under the LGPL (with tweaks). I do hope that this new direction for Cincom works out really well. It is important to me. I care ... hence my questions. I am not attacking, I am seeking to understand. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
I understand your concerns. To make it more clear: the usage of Cincom Smalltalk requires a license - a commercial or a non-commercial one. The coyright of Widgetry is owned by Cincom. You can use it under whatever license you have for using Cincom Smalltalk.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Bruce Badger [mailto:[hidden email]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2007 16:49 An: Nowak, Helge Cc: Robertson, James; [hidden email] Betreff: Re: Re :Long live Widgetry On 13/09/2007, Nowak, Helge <[hidden email]> wrote: > no, as I see it it is *not* "clear as mud" (Jim, please correct me if I am wrong!): > > anybody who has a Cincom Smalltalk license is allowed to use Widgetry under the license termns he has. This of course does not allow porting to other dialects but usage for his projects/products is ok. But of course he cannot call Cincom Support for fixing problems. Maintenance and enhancements have to be carried on his own. The thing is, there are lots of things in the public Store. They are all licensed in different ways. Just being in the public Store does not bestow a license on a bit of software, only the copyright holder can do that. So if you guys are saying the Widgetry is under the VWNC license, then fine - that answers my question. Thanks. But is that really the case? Because it's not true for Glorp, for example. Glorp is under the LGPL (with tweaks). I do hope that this new direction for Cincom works out really well. It is important to me. I care ... hence my questions. I am not attacking, I am seeking to understand. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
Bruce
However, it was also distributed on the Software CD. So, the licenses that apply to the CD should also apply to its form from the repository. Terry =========================================================== Terry Raymond Crafted Smalltalk 80 Lazywood Ln. Tiverton, RI 02878 (401) 624-4517 [hidden email] <http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com> =========================================================== > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Badger [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:49 AM > To: Nowak, Helge > Cc: Robertson, James; [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Re :Long live Widgetry > > On 13/09/2007, Nowak, Helge <[hidden email]> wrote: > > no, as I see it it is *not* "clear as mud" (Jim, please correct me if I > am wrong!): > > > > anybody who has a Cincom Smalltalk license is allowed to use Widgetry > under the license termns he has. This of course does not allow porting to > other dialects but usage for his projects/products is ok. But of course he > cannot call Cincom Support for fixing problems. Maintenance and > enhancements have to be carried on his own. > > The thing is, there are lots of things in the public Store. They are > all licensed in different ways. Just being in the public Store does > not bestow a license on a bit of software, only the copyright holder > can do that. So if you guys are saying the Widgetry is under the VWNC > license, then fine - that answers my question. Thanks. > > But is that really the case? Because it's not true for Glorp, for > example. Glorp is under the LGPL (with tweaks). > > I do hope that this new direction for Cincom works out really well. > It is important to me. I care ... hence my questions. I am not > attacking, I am seeking to understand. > > Best regards, > Bruce > -- > Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills > http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
On 13/09/2007, Terry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, it was also distributed on the Software CD. So, > the licenses that apply to the CD should also apply to its form > from the repository. My PostgreSQL drivers are on the CD too, and Sport. Also Glorp is on there. Jun, GemStone... etc Sorry if I came over as a pest. Really, I just wanted to understand the situation. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: Re :Long live Widgetry
|
|
> My PostgreSQL drivers are on the CD too, and Sport. Also Glorp is on > there. Jun, GemStone... etc > > Sorry if I came over as a pest. Really, I just wanted to understand > the situation. > > Licensing should be more prominent on packages/bundles. There is actually support for this in the code base already - there's a special property on CodeComponent (the superclass for PundleModel -> BundleModel, PackageModel) called copyrightNotice which is a property of #notice. You can use this, but no tools are provided to interpret it and give warnings and there's no prominent UI like there is for comment. Often, you see licenses stuck in the comment. Perhaps this should change. Michael |
Re: License statements in the public repository (Was: Long live Widgetry)
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
Bruce Badger schrieb am 13.09.2007 17:15:
> On 13/09/2007, Terry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote: >> However, it was also distributed on the Software CD. So, >> the licenses that apply to the CD should also apply to its form >> from the repository. > > My PostgreSQL drivers are on the CD too, and Sport. Also Glorp is on > there. Jun, GemStone... etc > > Sorry if I came over as a pest. Really, I just wanted to understand > the situation. What this boils down to IMO is that there are many components in the public repository and on the CD which do not have any licensing information attached, and that it should be made clear by the respective authors what the license is or if it is in the public domain. Components in the public repository often don't have a license statement - for most Cincom provided packages, it's not in the package and bundle comments, and there is no other place for it. So if you download the base VisualWorks from the Cincom web site and then turn to the public repository, there is no indication what license applies to which component. The simple rule "no license statement means public domain" is obviously wrong. This should be fixed, anything in the public repository which is under Cincom's license should have a clear indication of this in it's comment. For the CD, it's relatively simple (but actually I'm not sure if these rules are really written down anywhere): If it's not in the "contributed" directory, it's under Cincom's license (NC or commercial), if it's in "contributed" and has a license statement, then this license applies, and if it's in "contributed" and does not have a license statement, it's public domain. Apart from the little complication that in some legislations like the german one, it's not possible to put something in the public domain, because german laws actually deny the right to give up one's rights as author (what a stupid concept :-( ). Just my .02c. Joachim Geidel |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
What about Cincom customers collaborating for bug fixes and enhancements? We have decided to go forward with our Widgetry UIs for our next release. I already have enhancements (in place editing for listboxes) that could be published. I am also planning to develop a look and feel that uses Cairo for rendering. Once complete, can this be made available, and how would it be licensed?
Mike On 9/13/07, James Robertson <[hidden email]> wrote: Helge is correct - the terms of usage are as he states them. -- Mike Hales Engineering Manager KnowledgeScape www.kscape.com |
|
|
On 13/09/2007, Mike Hales <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What about Cincom customers collaborating for bug fixes and enhancements? > We have decided to go forward with our Widgetry UIs for our next release. I > already have enhancements (in place editing for listboxes) that could be > published. I am also planning to develop a look and feel that uses Cairo > for rendering. Once complete, can this be made available, and how would it > be licensed? This is a very good question. Very reasonable too. Firstly IANAL (and you should talk to one), however my understanding is: The copyright of your starting point (Widgetry) lies with Cincom. The license for your use Widgetry will be the one in force when you acquired it. If you were to start now the licence would be the VWNC license, I understand. The copyright for your changes belong to you personally, unless you have agreed to hand them over to your employer (this is typically in an employment contract so you probably have). Your company can choose any license it likes to release their copyright stuff, but the license should not conflict with the Widgetry one in this case. A way to make this situation clearer would be for your company to assign the copyright of your works to Cincom so everything is consistent - but do you really want to just give away your works and also face the possibility of having to pay to use your own work in the future? Remember, if Cincom ever gets sold the new owners call the tune. I think this is a great example. I would be interested in hearing how Jim would see this working. All the best, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
Von: James Robertson
[mailto:[hidden email]]
... It is possible to make significant improvements to the UI frameworks without a complete migration to something new. You'll start to see improvements fairly quickly. ... Just as I
thought. I was asking for the specific improvements to the UI framework you are
planning and some kind of a time horizon and you dont answer but repeat your
"incremental improving" mantra - and adding "significant improvements will come
fairly quickly" (I'll add "in the interest of our
customers").
This makes
me very nervous.
I think
you stand there empty handed and just dont know what the cut-back UI staff
will come up with and you, probably, desperately hope that it will be something
you can market as improvement.
So, you
took Widgetry and give us - what?
Since you dont seem to have any concrete
plans, may I suggest a simple very specific
requirement?
(BTW
community: good news is that the flood gates are open again for all the pressing
UI fixes and request we have been waiting for all these years - now we can go
ahead and post them, or, if you are a customer, you can open support
cases).
Drop-down
list (with edit field) in the toolbar:
The
business case (managers need that, right): I have a graphical view (my charts)
for which I would like to offer my customers the possibility to zoom in and out.
This feature is implemented in most (if not all) applications with a
drop-down list which offers several fixed scalings and a numeric input
field where the user can input any scaling factor. These controls are usually in
the toolbar. Not putting this in the toolbar has two problems: 1. There is no
good place on the window real estate to place it and 2. it would need extra
explanation because it is not the customary way of doing
it.
(Is this
case valid enough?)
So, why
didnt I do it myself? After all its Smalltalk and everything is
possible.
I gather
it would take me a week to do so (and I never started it because of
time pressure and also because this was one of the first things Sames
implemented which would have solved the problem once I moved smallCharts to
Widgetry).
Over the
years I did some modifications to widgets, as probably many others as well. I
always ended up with the need to override some long and ugly method(s) of
the framework and it never felt "right" - it was always a more or less ugli
hack. It did work because of Smalltalk, but it was not
satisfying.
Now, you
are the experts - that should be a no-brainer, because the old stuff is so good,
right.
Can you
convince me to wait for this (how long?) instead of moving to Widgetry where it
is just there?
Cheers,
Christian
|
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
That's
already done in the RB toolbar search field. As you mention, achieving things
like this at the moment is a hack, but at least you'd be copying Cincom's own
(presumably well-informed and supported) hack.
Good point! I suggest as a starting point that Cincom
makes the list of existing UI-related ARs public, and customers get to vote on
them. From my experience of submitting a fair number of such support cases, many
are just languishing, especially since Pollock's announcement and the subsequent
decision to suspend all non-critical work on the current UI.
I'd imagine some components (e.g. menus) will be better
off rewritten, rather than adding yet another few lines of hacks to try to cope
with one corner case, which tend to introduce another corner case that isn't
discovered until later. The difference between such a rewrite and Widgetry is
that customer code that simply uses such widgets will continue to work
as-is. Cheers,
Steve |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
Von: Steven Kelly
[mailto:[hidden email]]
That's already done in the RB toolbar search field. As you mention,
achieving things like this at the moment is a hack, but at least you'd be
copying Cincom's own (presumably well-informed and supported) hack.
Like you, i did
look into that of course. The find widget is implemented entirely on the
application level and there is no attempt to do anything about it on the
framework level.
Have you seen
the method RefactoringBrowser>>addFind ? The comment
reads:
"This isn't a
pretty method, but I want an input field in the
toolbar."
And what a
beauty it is! All the navigation to get to the right pieces - couldnt be more
brittle. And, of course, a generic error handler around all of it
:-)
It this a
brilliant illustration of the points I am trying to
make!
(mind you, this
bad implementation is not due to lack of competence by the Browser programmers,
but due to the problems with the underlying
framework)
Cheers,
Christian |
Re: AW: Re :Long live Widgetry
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-7
Christian Haider wrote:
> *Von:* Steven Kelly [mailto:[hidden email]] > > *From:* Christian Haider > [mailto:[hidden email]] > Since you dont seem to have any concrete plans, may I suggest a > simple very specific requirement? > Drop-down list (with edit field) in the toolbar: > That's already done in the RB toolbar search field. As you mention, > achieving things like this at the moment is a hack, but at least you'd > be copying Cincom's own (presumably well-informed and supported) hack. > Like you, i did look into that of course. The find widget is > implemented entirely on the application level and there is no attempt > to do anything about it on the framework level. > Have you seen the method RefactoringBrowser>>addFind ? The comment reads: > "This isn't a pretty method, but I want an input field in the toolbar." > And what a beauty it is! All the navigation to get to the right pieces > - couldnt be more brittle. And, of course, a generic error handler > around all of it :-) > > It this a brilliant illustration of the points I am trying to make! > > (mind you, this bad implementation is not due to lack of competence by > the Browser programmers, but due to the problems with the underlying > framework) > > Cheers, > Christian Another place to put it is in the status bar below, like for example Opera does. Having just done that with a combobox-widget, I can tell you it has serious issues when you try to use custom number formatting though... (0% in the case of zoom level). As it's a subclass of texteditor, the formatting disappears when you have it selected and the value changes, from say, selecting a new value from the dropdown menu (even if it's read only attribute is set and you can't edit the text). Also, when it's deselected, the formatting does not return to its normal value. Personally, I think it'd be nice if toolbars and menus were treated as separate entities, since their layouts really aren't similar if you want to build a "modern" toolbar. Another minor annoyance, hotkeys for actions you have only defined in a toolbar, does not work. Kinda irritating to have to have "Zoom in" and "zoom out" options in a menu in order to support hotkeys in a simple way (sure, you could add them manually through a hack, but then the "productivity" gain by using smalltalk goes down the drain...) There's lots of more that needs to be fixed/cleaned up with Wrapper, I feel even sorrier for those stuck with that task than I do for Sam Shuster, good luck to you guys! Henry |
|
|
In reply to this post by Christian Haider
Hi,
I originally didn't want to join this thread because all has been said, but I just could not resist any longer (sorry for that :-)... First of all, I completely agree with Christian that killing Widgetry and resurrecting its Wrapper ancestor is a bad move. Cincom justifies this decision with the following arguments (at least as I recall them): 1. No backwards compatibility for customers when migrating their applications from Wrapper to Widgetry. 2. No tool support for Widgetry (UIBUilder). 3. No one was using Widgetry during its development (except for Sam of course). The first point is a non-issue for us. We were planning to completely rewrite (the UI part of) our application for Widgetry anyway. And frankly I just don't see the point of automatic migration here because where in Wrapper we use our own home-grown read-only dataset and subcanvas for selected item(s), we would use Widgetry Grid with its in-place editing capabilities... The only requirement for us in this regard is that Wrapper and Widgetry can live peacefully together in one image which they can. The second point is a non-issue for us as well, because it would be quite easy to write some glue support code to ease (and automate) creation of our UIs. In the end this might as well turn out to be more productive than using any UI builder... The third point is a problem I was worrying about for quite some time, but on the other hand, Widgetry was implemented using TDD from the very begining so its API can not be that bad and from what I saw the contrary is true. And above all: * Widgetry is completely dynamic (no need for #postBuild and #postOpen stuff anymore). * Available widgets in Widgetry are superior to the ones in Wrapper (take Wrapper Dataset and Widgetry Grid for example). * Widgetry does not use direct drawing at all and only very little GC copying. * Widgetry is clean, i.e. it is not full of hacks made by us - customers in order to fix yet another Wrapper issue or add this mandatory piece of functionality that was not there. Finally one last remark, I just don't see how Cincom plans to deliver incremental improvements of Wrapper that do not need "big" modifications on our side especially when we have all Wrapper sources at our disposal; whatever they change, there might be someone who counted on the previous behavior... Just my two cents, Ladislav Lenart |
«
Return to VisualWorks
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |