Hi, Let's take this on the Pharo mailing list. I do think that Glamour should be considered for being part of the Pharo infrastructure. At least the Core and the basic Morphic rendering (i.e., without Mondrian, EyeSee and Magritte). And I also think your analysis is not accurate. Here is why (I apologize for the long list): 1. Glamour is quite well documented. There is a chapter describing it. There are a tone of examples documenting all sorts of features. There comments are not as good as they could be, but there are comments, and I can help documenting more. 2. It is quite well tested. This part can be improved, but the core has some 80% coverage. 3. I am not the only one that knows how to mingle with it. To give some examples, Jorge, Damien (Cassou) and Esteban helped fixing some intricate bugs directly in the core. Lukas built the first Seaside rendering quite fast. I would also mention that as a student, Andrei Chis took about 1 month of work to produce a working version of a Seaside rendering almost from scratch. So, maybe it's not that difficult. 4. The core is quite stable since more than 1 year. There were changes, but they were mostly related to bug fixes. 5. The main point of using this infrastructure is not to replace Morphic, but it is to limit the maintenance of the browsers, and to empower more people to build more browsers. For example, the Glamorous Inspector has less than 200 lines of code in total. This is really tiny for the amount of things it offers. And it is highly extensible, too. 6. It's actually not that large: the core has 36 classes, and if you consider all the other presentations, helper classes and specialized browsers (but without the rendering code), you get some 93 classes. 7. But, perhaps the most important part is that there have been literally hundreds of browsers built on top of it. Not all of them are useful now, but they were when they were built. And it seems that people can build one quite fast without much knowledge of the internals either. That is the whole point of this infrastructure. Esteban even used it for building commercial applications. I built a couple, too. The whole of Moose is now using this infrastructure, too. I am not saying that Glamour is perfect. There are quite a couple of things I would like to enhance (for example, the request ideas from Omnibrowser, or the wizard workflows from Merlin), but it has proved to be quite solid until now. So, before dismissing Glamour, perhaps it would be useful to actually look into it. Cheers, Doru
On Dec 31, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Stef,
You seem to say that it is bad that Glamour provides a good infrastructure that appeals to people. Maybe a better conclusion is that Glamour is something to be considered for the infrastructure of Pharo.
Do you think so? I do not think that we can base our infrastructure on something that only one person understand and can modify. You will tell that this is the same for Morphic but this is not true.
Stef
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Beauty is where we see it."