> Jason,
>
> Understood/agreed.  In fact I would expect to see a
> MorphicWorldPresenter that would allow one to incorporate morphs into an
> MVP framework.  I probably would start out using Morphic for views, and
> once that was working, start looking for an alternative.  It should be
> possible to coexist so that: (1) there will be a prayer of people
> looking at it let alone using it; (2) who wants to start writing an IDE
> while reworking the GUI =:0
>
> 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] 09/18/07 1:06 PM >>>
> On 9/16/07, Bill Schwab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure that we are actually trying to ditch Morphic, so much as
> > offer an alternative to it.
>
> With the MVP proposals I don't think we are doing either.  I think
> Morphic could be used for the view if we want.
>
> I hope people don't take my questioning of Morphic as an indication
> that MVP has to replace it.  I think these are two totally different
> issues.
>
>
> >  Perhaps we can offer a choice between
> > Morphic and "The Welch Thing" on a per-use basis.
>
> Personally I see this choice as the power of the MVP model.  We can
> create a domain class, a presenter for it and a view (or a few) for
> each possible View type (e.g. Tweak, Morphic, OpenGL, Seaside?), which
> can be selected automatically depending on user preferences.
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>
> _______________________________________________
> UI mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
>