On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 05:20 -0500, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:36:13AM +0100, Alain Plantec wrote:
themePreference <preference> ^ ThemePreference ifNil: [ThemePreference := MultiplePreferenceValue name: 'UITheme' description: 'The theme to use for UI look and feel' parent: #uiPreferenceNode type: #UITheme default: UIThemeWatery2 values: { FixedPreferenceValue name: 'Standard Squeak' description: 'Standard Squeak style' type: #UITheme
value: UIThemeStandardSqueak. FixedPreferenceValue name: 'Watery 2' description: 'Similar to a nice OS' type: #UITheme value: UIThemeWatery2}]
You're really just inventing a half-baked Magritte now. Do yourself a favor and use the real thing. Magritte is far more descriptive and far less verbose than anything you have yet presented. Magritte also already knows how to automatically create both seaside and morphic forms out of a field description. It also knows more ways to look up a field than just selector and block.
I don't think so. This is a definition of composite value model. The value model does not need to reflect the structure of the objects that use those preferences. Magritte on the other side would describe the other model as it is a meta-model description. And Magritte is a lot more heavy weight. So while it looks similar I can't see what you are telling. But you could use Magritte to describe this model ad then generate a UI out of it ;) Norbert