[Pharo-project] about ToolBuilder
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
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr
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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
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 <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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 <estebanlm@gmail.com>wrote:
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 <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>
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 <estebanlm@gmail.com>wrote:
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 <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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? Cheers, Esteban On 2010-08-02 17:05:58 -0300, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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 <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> 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 <richard.durr@googlemail.com>:
+1. See Gilad's text about least common denominator in UI-widgetery On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> 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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (6)
-
Carla F. Griggio -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Lukas Renggli -
Richard Durr -
stephane ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse