Answers inline again
On Dec 19, 2014, at 20:33, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spec is all about *composing* models. If you want a GUI with many UI elements and try to build this with a single model, spec won't be much help."
whats a model ?
whats a composing model ?
To quote two parts of the Spec documentation: "UI Element = an interactive graphical element displayed as part of the Graphical User Interface. UI Model = an object that contains the state and behavior of one or several UI elements." "To define a user interface, it is sufficient to define the model of the user interface. [â¦] since all UIs are constructed through composition of other UI's, and it is sufficient to define the model to define the UI, the root class of all UIs is named ComposableModel.So, to define a new user interface, a subclass of ComposableModel needs to be created.â [â¦]
"spec is designed to provide *reusable* models."
dont understand what that means since I dont understand model and documentation does explain it clearly.
Please tell me what is not clear about the above text (ideally in the context of that part of the documentation). I have included a markdown file of the complete documentation just in case. It is crucial to me that it is understandable.
"Take a look at DynamicComposableModel (the examples in pharo or the examples posted on this list), for a simple GUI you only need some few lines of code."
yes that is more to what I like but I was trying to do thing the "default" way of Spec.
"That's not unusual. 90% spec means "not 90% morphic"
no what I meant is that 90% is what Spec requires and 10% what is actually would make sense to me that Spec should require.
From the code I reviewed (quickly) I do not agree that you are doing things 100% in the âdefaultâ way of Spec. For example the following is not standard: the double instantiation of models in initializeWidgets and the splitting up in many small methods in initializeWidgets and in initialize.
[â¦]
I want to use Morphic and extend it where it does not fit my style or my needs.
Sure, I have no problem with that. I just want Spec to be as clear and usable as possible. If itâs not your style, no problem.
Just a side note, what I did with Spec is follow its documentation and its examples, its not as if I made all this up out of my head.
Just wondering, did you see an example with the double instantiation of models or with the needles splitting up in methods? If so tell us where it is so we can fix it.
We can also debate what is "constructive criticism" but it wont be a long pointless debate since its a very vague definition anyway. I know however one thing in life, that complain is way more valuable than applauding, though less desirable.
In this case, I explicitly asked for comments so Iâm OK with all your feedback. ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile