about ToolBuilder
Locked
 
|
Hi guys
during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think that it would be better to remove it since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be constantly limiting ourselves. Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI framework). So far we got only one and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common denominator. Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. So what do you think? Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
+1.
See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi guys _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
I agree that it should be removed, but this means that many tools need
to be rewritten in plain morphic. Lukas 2010/8/2 Richard Durr <[hidden email]>: > +1. > See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi guys >> >> during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think >> that it would be better to remove it >> since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be >> constantly limiting ourselves. >> Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI >> framework). So far we got only one >> and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common >> denominator. >> Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. >> So what do you think? >> >> Stef >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
> I agree that it should be removed, but this means that many tools need
> to be rewritten in plain morphic. do you know which ones? Because a lot of buildwith: methods are not used in fact. > Lukas > > 2010/8/2 Richard Durr <[hidden email]>: >> +1. >> See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery >> >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys >>> >>> during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think >>> that it would be better to remove it >>> since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be >>> constantly limiting ourselves. >>> Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI >>> framework). So far we got only one >>> and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common >>> denominator. >>> Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. >>> So what do you think? >>> >>> Stef >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Richard Durr-2
where?
> See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Oh, I'm using it for Mars... but I can remove it anyway, just let me know.
Cheers, Esteban On 2010-08-02 17:05:58 -0300, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> said: >> I agree that it should be removed, but this means that many tools need >> to be rewritten in plain morphic. > > do you know which ones? > Because a lot of buildwith: methods are not used in fact. > >> Lukas >> >> 2010/8/2 Richard Durr <[hidden email]>: >>> +1. >>> See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think >>>> that it would be better to remove it >>>> since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be >>>> constantly limiting ourselves. >>>> Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI >>>> framework). So far we got only one >>>> and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common >>>> denominator. >>>> Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. >>>> So what do you think? >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Ups, it was not written by Gilad but by Vassili:
http://blog.3plus4.org/2008/11/13/how-to-design-a-smalltalk-ui-framework/ On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: Oh, I'm using it for Mars... but I can remove it anyway, just let me know. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Hmmm but if Mars is using it, there will be another UI framework using ToolBuilder, so it would have sense to keep it, maybe?
2010/8/4 Richard Durr <[hidden email]> Ups, it was not written by Gilad but by Vassili: _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
So... let's suppose we get rid off ToolBuilder... any idea of what we
should use? hand made? OB? Glamour? Cheers, Esteban On 2010-08-02 17:05:58 -0300, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> said: >> I agree that it should be removed, but this means that many tools need >> to be rewritten in plain morphic. > > do you know which ones? > Because a lot of buildwith: methods are not used in fact. > >> Lukas >> >> 2010/8/2 Richard Durr <[hidden email]>: >>> +1. >>> See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think >>>> that it would be better to remove it >>>> since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be >>>> constantly limiting ourselves. >>>> Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI >>>> framework). So far we got only one >>>> and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common >>>> denominator. >>>> Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. >>>> So what do you think? >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
> So... let's suppose we get rid off ToolBuilder... any idea of what we should use? hand made? OB? Glamour?
What I suggest is that we wait a bit. I would like to see with benjamin if we can help UIBuilder to get some windowspec and UIbuilder (VW like approach) or if this is possible to extend toolbuilder to support all the widgets. Stef > > Cheers, > Esteban > > On 2010-08-02 17:05:58 -0300, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> said: > >>> I agree that it should be removed, but this means that many tools need >>> to be rewritten in plain morphic. >> do you know which ones? >> Because a lot of buildwith: methods are not used in fact. >>> Lukas >>> 2010/8/2 Richard Durr <[hidden email]>: >>>> +1. >>>> See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery >>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> Hi guys >>>>> during the sprint I discussed with Gary about ToolBuilder and we think >>>>> that it would be better to remove it >>>>> since a lot of new widgets are not covered so this means that we will be >>>>> constantly limiting ourselves. >>>>> Of course ToolBuilder is a nice idea (if we would have several UI >>>>> framework). So far we got only one >>>>> and we would have several we would have to take the smallest common >>>>> denominator. >>>>> Another idea would be to extend toolBuilder to support new widgets. >>>>> So what do you think? >>>>> Stef >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> -- >>> Lukas Renggli >>> www.lukas-renggli.ch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |