UI Enhancements dependency Package Universes

> Tim,
>
> Agreed, and then some.  I would not be upset by a framework that can
> work down to the individual widget, but what you describe would give
> most of the benefits of host integration and very few of the hassles.
> In that, I am assuming (a safe bet I think) that Gary will ensure that
> the feel is sufficiently configurable that we will not need an outside
> framework to impose discipline re keyboard focus, etc.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029
>
> >>> [hidden email] 02/15/08 3:00 PM >>>
>
> Our basic intent when designing Ffenestri was to allow pretty much any
> usage. If you want to map a single SystemWindow level object to a host
> window then that would be good and would match most needs in typical
> applications. Don't forget to consider floating palette type windows
> as well - those that accompany a main window and provide a palette of
> tool icons etc. And menus could be implemented by opening a short
> lived small window; this might well be much simpler and more portable
> than trying to hook cleanly into every OS menu api, whilst allowing
> the menu to be taller than a small app. window if needed.
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Klingon Code Warrior:- 10) "This code is a piece of crap!  You have no
> honor!"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>

> Tim,
>
> Agreed, and then some.  I would not be upset by a framework that can
> work down to the individual widget, but what you describe would give
> most of the benefits of host integration and very few of the hassles.
> In that, I am assuming (a safe bet I think) that Gary will ensure that
> the feel is sufficiently configurable that we will not need an outside
> framework to impose discipline re keyboard focus, etc.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029
>
> >>> [hidden email] 02/15/08 3:00 PM >>>
>
> Our basic intent when designing Ffenestri was to allow pretty much any
> usage. If you want to map a single SystemWindow level object to a host
> window then that would be good and would match most needs in typical
> applications. Don't forget to consider floating palette type windows
> as well - those that accompany a main window and provide a palette of
> tool icons etc. And menus could be implemented by opening a short
> lived small window; this might well be much simpler and more portable
> than trying to hook cleanly into every OS menu api, whilst allowing
> the menu to be taller than a small app. window if needed.
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Klingon Code Warrior:- 10) "This code is a piece of crap!  You have no
> honor!"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Bill Schwab
> Sent: 17 February 2008 1:07 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [UI] Morphic restructuring
>
>
> First, I am not aware that anything is being done in the dark.  However,
> Object Arts did pretty well with MVP w/o a lot of input, so maybe a
> small group _should_ be working behind closed doors.  Indeed, the
> technology that seeded this effort came from a well-intentioned and
> skilled group of people at Pinesoft.  Please note that they have made
> substantial changes based on our feedback, and this thread started with
> them asking for input on a future change.  It's working; let's not
> derail them.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill

> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 13:49, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> > Regarding the recent posts on Morph. I just want to write I am very
> > interested by what Juan is doing with Morph 3, and also about Alain
> > Plantec work to improve Morph.
> > ....
>
> Thanks Hilaire,
> Miro is in very early stage and I did'nt want to say to much about it
> before I can show something to the community.
> but I can say a little bit more. The aim is to provide a set of
> re-targetable widgets. By re-targetable, I mean that it would be possible
> to use them with Morphic2, Morphic3, or SqueakGtk or another connectable
> viewing framework. For now, I'm using a fork of 4 morph classes (Morph,
> ImageMorph, TextMorph and TransformMorph). My widgets are build by
> composition of these 4 morph classes (no inheritance but only real
> composition). Each widget is connected to its view classe (like my 4 Morph
> classes are) by a mediator called a Director. A director have the
> responsibility to build the scene (compose Morphs), to dress the scene
> (style and theme handling) and to manage communications between the scenes
> and the widgets.
> Communications between the scene and the director and the widgets and
> finally the client GUI is made with the help of Announcement framework.
> So I think this architecture can be powerful but it has a cost and I want
> to experiment it before I claim I have something interesting.
> From my point of view, Morphic3 is a very interesting project because it
> aims to provide a minimal set of very clean Morph classes. This is exactly
> what I'm looking for as a built-in viewing framework.
> A first demonstration of Miro usability will be obtained when I will be
> able to really transparently re-target the same client GUI from Morphic2
> compatible classes to Morphic3. The next big step will be to connect Miro
> to SqueakGtk. I will really be satisfied when I will be able to bring
> native widgets connection to squeak.
> As soon as I have a minimal set of clean widget connected to Morphic2
> compatible view classes, I document it and expose it to the community in
> order to receive some feedbacks.
> A long way to go but funny :)
> cheers
> alain
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Alain Plantec
> Sent: 24 February 2008 9:29 AM
> To: Squeak's User Interface
> Subject: Re: [UI] Morphic restructuring
>
>
> On Saturday 23 February 2008 18:30, Gary Chambers wrote:
> > Once we have a nice performant and flexible framework I see the
> roles being
> > reversed, Morphic being handled via an adaptor in the new framework...
> >
> > All thoughts welcome.
> > Gary.
>
>
> Hi Gary,
> Maybe this is (at least partly) what I'm working on with Miro.
> Here is what I said about it on squeak-dev 2 weeks ago as a
> answer to Hilaire
>