Writing a Login Dialog using Spec in 3 methods
So, how hard would it be for a normal user like me, who knows little about the Pharo UI or Spec, to write a plain, simple Login dialog ? It turns out it only takes 3 methods and some boilerplate code that is mostly auto generated. 0. Make a subclass of ComposableModel with instance variables for the UI elements that we need ComposableModel subclass: #LoginModel instanceVariableNames: 'usernameLabel usernameField passwordLabel passwordField' classVariableNames: '' category: '_UnpackagedPackage' 1. Specify the layout of the UI LoginModel class>>#defaultSpec <spec: #default> ^ SpecLayout composed newColumn: [ :col | col newRow: [ :row | row add: #usernameLabel width: 80; add: #usernameField ] height: self inputTextHeight; newRow: [ :row | row add: #passwordLabel width: 80; add: #passwordField ] height: self inputTextHeight ]; yourself 2. Build the UI elements LoginModel>>#initializeWidgets usernameLabel := self newLabel. usernameLabel text: 'Username'. usernameField := self newTextInput. usernameField autoAccept: true; ghostText: 'john@acme.com'. passwordLabel := self newLabel. passwordLabel text: 'Password'; yourself. passwordField := self newTextInput. passwordField beEncrypted; autoAccept: true; ghostText: '******'. self focusOrder add: usernameField; add: passwordField 3. Open the UI as modal dialog LoginModel class>>#getCredentials "self getCredentials" | login dialog | login := self new. dialog := login openDialogWithSpec. dialog modalRelativeTo: self currentWorld. dialog cancelled ifTrue: [ ^ nil ]. ^ login credentials X. Some boilerplate code Auto-generate read accessors for the 4 instance variables. LoginModel>>#title ^ 'Login' LoginModel>>#initialExtent ^ 350 @ 150 LoginModel>>#credentials ^ usernameField text -> passwordField text I think this is pretty cool. I really can't imagine how much easier, how much less code this should take. Let us all learn to use what we have, accept it the way it is, and make it better, together. Sven BTW: While writing this, following some senders/implementers, I found out that in Pharo 4, CredentialsEditor does almost the same thing. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org
Hi Sven, I had it this way too. Thanks. Unfortunately my Spec definition was a little different and didn't work out at all. Especially upon resize. But here is my question regarding embedding this into an "application". Is this MVC? Here we have Model, View and Controller within one class called Model.... That is exactly what made me think 1000times if this is right and a vital way to go once you want to implement a real workflow. I looked at all the different approaches. Just becomming aware that Morph is actually not a class to derive from is something a beginner needs to understand when he just wants to implement a Window using Morphs.... and that is already a major difference to other frameworks where a Window and a Button are part of the same Hierarchy. Oh wait and what is a MorphicModel then? Is it a Morph or a Model? Or Both? I did browse the Squeak/Self Morphic wiki sites and even though most links do not work anymore, I have the feeling that a lot of knowledge her e has already been lost and everybody invents his own wheel currently. I want to be able to take a LoginModel and have 5 different Morph/View implementations using it. If Spec asks for this kind of Model subclassing, then I do understand that some community members have their problems with it. Not saying that this is the wrong way to go, but I would also rather devide the scpec the model and the controll layer into different classes. But since there is no example available for this I think one can't even properly discuss that. For beginners ther eshould be ONE implementation that guides them through all needed aspects of OO programming including UIs. Sebastian Am 12.02.2015 um 15:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
So, how hard would it be for a normal user like me, who knows little about the Pharo UI or Spec, to write a plain, simple Login dialog ?
It turns out it only takes 3 methods and some boilerplate code that is mostly auto generated.
0. Make a subclass of ComposableModel with instance variables for the UI elements that we need
ComposableModel subclass: #LoginModel instanceVariableNames: 'usernameLabel usernameField passwordLabel passwordField' classVariableNames: '' category: '_UnpackagedPackage'
1. Specify the layout of the UI
LoginModel class>>#defaultSpec <spec: #default>
^ SpecLayout composed newColumn: [ :col | col newRow: [ :row | row add: #usernameLabel width: 80; add: #usernameField ] height: self inputTextHeight; newRow: [ :row | row add: #passwordLabel width: 80; add: #passwordField ] height: self inputTextHeight ]; yourself
2. Build the UI elements
LoginModel>>#initializeWidgets usernameLabel := self newLabel. usernameLabel text: 'Username'. usernameField := self newTextInput. usernameField autoAccept: true; ghostText: 'john@acme.com'. passwordLabel := self newLabel. passwordLabel text: 'Password'; yourself. passwordField := self newTextInput. passwordField beEncrypted; autoAccept: true; ghostText: '******'. self focusOrder add: usernameField; add: passwordField
3. Open the UI as modal dialog
LoginModel class>>#getCredentials "self getCredentials"
| login dialog | login := self new. dialog := login openDialogWithSpec. dialog modalRelativeTo: self currentWorld. dialog cancelled ifTrue: [ ^ nil ]. ^ login credentials
X. Some boilerplate code
Auto-generate read accessors for the 4 instance variables.
LoginModel>>#title ^ 'Login'
LoginModel>>#initialExtent ^ 350 @ 150
LoginModel>>#credentials ^ usernameField text -> passwordField text
I think this is pretty cool. I really can't imagine how much easier, how much less code this should take.
Let us all learn to use what we have, accept it the way it is, and make it better, together.
Sven
BTW: While writing this, following some senders/implementers, I found out that in Pharo 4, CredentialsEditor does almost the same thing.
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org
Ha! Now I think I got it! Spec is MVVM and not MVC! That means if I would like to implement with Spec, my root of entry should be a subclass of Model (ViewModel in real). If I would like to have a more MVC approach I would rather subclass MorphicModel or StandardWindow as an Entry for own windows&widgets..... That also means that using the MVC approach I would probably have to implement my own controller layer with announcements and such, whereas SPEC already provides quite some default "Adaptor" implementations that handle and redirect events... Well, it would really be great to have a "SushiStore" example for both approaches so that newcomers could learn from the differences and decide which way will work best for their existing experience. I absolutely share the thought of diversity, but one should be able to unload one of both approaches from an image so that learning and development can be done more efficiently. Maybe one should think of a move of all Spec Model subclasses to a ViewModel subclass of Model. That could lower the initial learning curve a little.... Getting there! I think. Sebastian On 2015-02-12 4:34 PM, Sebastian Heidbrink wrote:
Hi Sven,
I had it this way too. Thanks. Unfortunately my Spec definition was a little different and didn't work out at all. Especially upon resize.
But here is my question regarding embedding this into an "application".
Is this MVC? Here we have Model, View and Controller within one class called Model.... That is exactly what made me think 1000times if this is right and a vital way to go once you want to implement a real workflow.
I looked at all the different approaches. Just becomming aware that Morph is actually not a class to derive from is something a beginner needs to understand when he just wants to implement a Window using Morphs.... and that is already a major difference to other frameworks where a Window and a Button are part of the same Hierarchy.
Oh wait and what is a MorphicModel then? Is it a Morph or a Model? Or Both?
I did browse the Squeak/Self Morphic wiki sites and even though most links do not work anymore, I have the feeling that a lot of knowledge her e has already been lost and everybody invents his own wheel currently.
I want to be able to take a LoginModel and have 5 different Morph/View implementations using it. If Spec asks for this kind of Model subclassing, then I do understand that some community members have their problems with it. Not saying that this is the wrong way to go, but I would also rather devide the scpec the model and the controll layer into different classes.
But since there is no example available for this I think one can't even properly discuss that.
For beginners ther eshould be ONE implementation that guides them through all needed aspects of OO programming including UIs.
Sebastian
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
So, how hard would it be for a normal user like me, who knows little about the Pharo UI or Spec, to write a plain, simple Login dialog ?
It turns out it only takes 3 methods and some boilerplate code that is mostly auto generated.
0. Make a subclass of ComposableModel with instance variables for the UI elements that we need
ComposableModel subclass: #LoginModel instanceVariableNames: 'usernameLabel usernameField passwordLabel passwordField' classVariableNames: '' category: '_UnpackagedPackage'
1. Specify the layout of the UI
LoginModel class>>#defaultSpec <spec: #default>
^ SpecLayout composed newColumn: [ :col | col newRow: [ :row | row add: #usernameLabel width: 80; add: #usernameField ] height: self inputTextHeight; newRow: [ :row | row add: #passwordLabel width: 80; add: #passwordField ] height: self inputTextHeight ]; yourself
2. Build the UI elements
LoginModel>>#initializeWidgets usernameLabel := self newLabel. usernameLabel text: 'Username'. usernameField := self newTextInput. usernameField autoAccept: true; ghostText: 'john@acme.com'. passwordLabel := self newLabel. passwordLabel text: 'Password'; yourself. passwordField := self newTextInput. passwordField beEncrypted; autoAccept: true; ghostText: '******'. self focusOrder add: usernameField; add: passwordField
3. Open the UI as modal dialog
LoginModel class>>#getCredentials "self getCredentials"
| login dialog | login := self new. dialog := login openDialogWithSpec. dialog modalRelativeTo: self currentWorld. dialog cancelled ifTrue: [ ^ nil ]. ^ login credentials
X. Some boilerplate code
Auto-generate read accessors for the 4 instance variables.
LoginModel>>#title ^ 'Login'
LoginModel>>#initialExtent ^ 350 @ 150
LoginModel>>#credentials ^ usernameField text -> passwordField text
I think this is pretty cool. I really can't imagine how much easier, how much less code this should take.
Let us all learn to use what we have, accept it the way it is, and make it better, together.
Sven
BTW: While writing this, following some senders/implementers, I found out that in Pharo 4, CredentialsEditor does almost the same thing.
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org
On 13 Feb 2015, at 04:46, Sebastian Heidbrink <sheidev@yahoo.de> wrote:
Ha!
Now I think I got it! Spec is MVVM and not MVC!
Something like that ;-)
That means if I would like to implement with Spec, my root of entry should be a subclass of Model (ViewModel in real). If I would like to have a more MVC approach I would rather subclass MorphicModel or StandardWindow as an Entry for own windows&widgets.....
That also means that using the MVC approach I would probably have to implement my own controller layer with announcements and such, whereas SPEC already provides quite some default "Adaptor" implementations that handle and redirect events...
Well, it would really be great to have a "SushiStore" example for both approaches so that newcomers could learn from the differences and decide which way will work best for their existing experience.
I am confused by your references to the SushiStore. The way I remember it, it was a Seaside demo. You want this re-implemented as a regular UI ? Not that that would be difficult, but it would make little sense.
I absolutely share the thought of diversity, but one should be able to unload one of both approaches from an image so that learning and development can be done more efficiently.
The world has changed, you can no longer look at a Pharo image and see only one true way. We have multiple, competing solutions in many areas and that is good. It is still perfectly possible to use senders/implementers to find examples and figure things out by exploring.
Maybe one should think of a move of all Spec Model subclasses to a ViewModel subclass of Model. That could lower the initial learning curve a little....
Getting there! I think.
That is good. Spec is not perfect, its main 'issue' is that the UI elements are called models, which confuses the hell out of people (me too in the beginning). But it does make sense, you model the UI (haha). The cool stuff about Spec is that is was designed to reuse components, not just how they look, but also how they work, with flexible wiring. This very difficult to do with just about any other framework. Just follow the original 'browser' example. Building GUI is not that simple, building good, flexible, reusable ones is hard. Spec can help and it certainly helps normal people building simple UIs.
Sebastian
On 2015-02-12 4:34 PM, Sebastian Heidbrink wrote:
Hi Sven,
I had it this way too. Thanks. Unfortunately my Spec definition was a little different and didn't work out at all. Especially upon resize.
But here is my question regarding embedding this into an "application".
Is this MVC? Here we have Model, View and Controller within one class called Model.... That is exactly what made me think 1000times if this is right and a vital way to go once you want to implement a real workflow.
I looked at all the different approaches. Just becomming aware that Morph is actually not a class to derive from is something a beginner needs to understand when he just wants to implement a Window using Morphs.... and that is already a major difference to other frameworks where a Window and a Button are part of the same Hierarchy.
Oh wait and what is a MorphicModel then? Is it a Morph or a Model? Or Both?
I did browse the Squeak/Self Morphic wiki sites and even though most links do not work anymore, I have the feeling that a lot of knowledge her e has already been lost and everybody invents his own wheel currently.
I want to be able to take a LoginModel and have 5 different Morph/View implementations using it. If Spec asks for this kind of Model subclassing, then I do understand that some community members have their problems with it. Not saying that this is the wrong way to go, but I would also rather devide the scpec the model and the controll layer into different classes.
But since there is no example available for this I think one can't even properly discuss that.
For beginners ther eshould be ONE implementation that guides them through all needed aspects of OO programming including UIs.
Sebastian
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
So, how hard would it be for a normal user like me, who knows little about the Pharo UI or Spec, to write a plain, simple Login dialog ?
It turns out it only takes 3 methods and some boilerplate code that is mostly auto generated.
0. Make a subclass of ComposableModel with instance variables for the UI elements that we need
ComposableModel subclass: #LoginModel instanceVariableNames: 'usernameLabel usernameField passwordLabel passwordField' classVariableNames: '' category: '_UnpackagedPackage'
1. Specify the layout of the UI
LoginModel class>>#defaultSpec <spec: #default>
^ SpecLayout composed newColumn: [ :col | col newRow: [ :row | row add: #usernameLabel width: 80; add: #usernameField ] height: self inputTextHeight; newRow: [ :row | row add: #passwordLabel width: 80; add: #passwordField ] height: self inputTextHeight ]; yourself
2. Build the UI elements
LoginModel>>#initializeWidgets usernameLabel := self newLabel. usernameLabel text: 'Username'. usernameField := self newTextInput. usernameField autoAccept: true; ghostText: ' john@acme.com '. passwordLabel := self newLabel. passwordLabel text: 'Password'; yourself. passwordField := self newTextInput. passwordField beEncrypted; autoAccept: true; ghostText: '******'. self focusOrder add: usernameField; add: passwordField
3. Open the UI as modal dialog
LoginModel class>>#getCredentials "self getCredentials"
| login dialog | login := self new. dialog := login openDialogWithSpec. dialog modalRelativeTo: self currentWorld. dialog cancelled ifTrue: [ ^ nil ]. ^ login credentials
X. Some boilerplate code
Auto-generate read accessors for the 4 instance variables.
LoginModel>>#title ^ 'Login'
LoginModel>>#initialExtent ^ 350 @ 150
LoginModel>>#credentials ^ usernameField text -> passwordField text
I think this is pretty cool. I really can't imagine how much easier, how much less code this should take.
Let us all learn to use what we have, accept it the way it is, and make it better, together.
Sven
BTW: While writing this, following some senders/implementers, I found out that in Pharo 4, CredentialsEditor does almost the same thing.
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo
http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Spec is not perfect, its main 'issue' is that the UI elements are called models, which confuses the hell out of people (me too in the beginning). But it does make sense, you model the UI (haha).
I find the same. So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?) cheers -ben
If we think about renaming things in Spec, actually Iâd rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI - all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*'
On Feb 13, 2015, at 14:58, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?)
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:29, Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
If we think about renaming things in Spec, actually Iâd rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI - all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*â
+100 Iâm super tired of âprotocolâ category (it is actually a protocol⦠as any other category under the âprotocolâ pane :P) api is a lot better
On Feb 13, 2015, at 14:58, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com <mailto:btc@openInWorld.com>> wrote:
So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?)
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <http://emailcharter.org/> <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry <http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry> PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:47, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:29, Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
If we think about renaming things in Spec, actually Iâd rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI - all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*â
+100 Iâm super tired of âprotocolâ category (it is actually a protocol⦠as any other category under the âprotocolâ pane :P) api is a lot better
I am pro too, but it does influence the docs a bit, ...
On Feb 13, 2015, at 14:58, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?)
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Feb 13, 2015, at 19:44, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:47, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:29, Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
If we think about renaming things in Spec, actually Iâd rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI - all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*â
+100 Iâm super tired of âprotocolâ category (it is actually a protocol⦠as any other category under the âprotocolâ pane :P) api is a lot better
I am pro too, but it does influence the docs a bit, ...
I have no problem in fixing the docs, as you might well imagine :-) We should do a pass on all the Spec documentation anyway. I hope to find time somewhere in the beginning of april ... ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
I would like to clean the API with all the changed: [ ] and other I am pro too, but it does influence the docs a bit, ...
I have no problem in fixing the docs, as you might well imagine :-) We should do a pass on all the Spec documentation anyway. I hope to find time somewhere in the beginning of april ...
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On Feb 13, 2015, at 14:58, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote: So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?) On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:29, Johan Fabry <jfabry@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
If we think about renaming things in Spec, actually Iâd rename: - ComposableModel to ComposableUI
- all the protocols âprotocol-*â to âAPI-*â
+100 Iâm super tired of âprotocolâ category (it is actually a protocol⦠as any other category under the âprotocolâ pane :P) api is a lot better
Lets do it! If you recognize in yourself that feeling of "tension"between doing what is right, and the effort to do it - then we should do what is right. So can we first decide that we should and _will_ do something, and then have some debate to finalise the actual term. I proposed ComposableUIModel, but ComposableUI sounds fine, maybe better. And at the same time, are there any other Spec classes that should follow the same philosphy? We should make such change a one-time spoon of medicine! cheers -ben
Le 13/2/15 14:58, Ben Coman a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote:
Spec is not perfect, its main 'issue' is that the UI elements are called models, which confuses the hell out of people (me too in the beginning). But it does make sense, you model the UI (haha).
I find the same. So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?)
Yes we could in VW it is call ApplicationModel
cheers -ben
If ComposableModel's semantics is similar to VW ApplicationModel then calling it the sameis probably an advantage, but but I can't help thinking that ApplicationModel is more related to the application domain than the UI as we need. The suggestion in another thread for ViewModel sounds better - but I haven't dug into Spec enough to get a feel for which is more appropriate. cheers -ben On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 5:39 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Le 13/2/15 14:58, Ben Coman a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Spec is not perfect, its main 'issue' is that the UI elements are called models, which confuses the hell out of people (me too in the beginning). But it does make sense, you model the UI (haha).
I find the same. So should we really rename ComposableModel to ComposableUIModel ? (And before Spec becomes more widely used?)
Yes we could in VW it is call ApplicationModel
cheers -ben
Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
Spec is not perfect, its main 'issue' is that the UI elements are called models
I appreciate the ability to easily create standard vanilla business UIs... which we did not have in the not-too-distant-past. And I'm not too worried because everything's a work in progress. But I would say that my main issues with it are discoverability and understandability. It seems that we're getting further and further from the Morphic dream of dragging something visual that "almost does what you want" and dropping it into your cool new UI, or at least digging down through halos to see how things work. And when I step through layers of symbol interpretation I feel sad. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Writing-a-Login-Dialog-using-Spec-in-3-methods-tp48054... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks sven for your spirit and attittude. I should say that if people would have more your attitude I would fell much better. Yes indeed I'm down because of people wanting always more and not putting a drop of energy on the table. PS: I turned your mail into a spec future book chapter :) Le 13/2/15 00:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
t turns out it only takes 3 methods and some boilerplate code that is mostly auto generated.
0. Make a subclass of ComposableModel with instance variables for the UI elements that we need
ComposableModel subclass: #LoginModel instanceVariableNames: 'usernameLabel usernameField passwordLabel passwordField' classVariableNames: '' category: '_UnpackagedPackage'
1. Specify the layout of the UI
LoginModel class>>#defaultSpec <spec: #default>
^ SpecLayout composed newColumn: [ :col | col newRow: [ :row | row add: #usernameLabel width: 80; add: #usernameField ] height: self inputTextHeight; newRow: [ :row | row add: #passwordLabel width: 80; add: #passwordField ] height: self inputTextHeight ]; yourself
2. Build the UI elements
LoginModel>>#initializeWidgets usernameLabel := self newLabel. usernameLabel text: 'Username'. usernameField := self newTextInput. usernameField autoAccept: true; ghostText: 'john@acme.com'. passwordLabel := self newLabel. passwordLabel text: 'Password'; yourself. passwordField := self newTextInput. passwordField beEncrypted; autoAccept: true; ghostText: '******'. self focusOrder add: usernameField; add: passwordField
3. Open the UI as modal dialog
LoginModel class>>#getCredentials "self getCredentials"
| login dialog | login := self new. dialog := login openDialogWithSpec. dialog modalRelativeTo: self currentWorld. dialog cancelled ifTrue: [ ^ nil ]. ^ login credentials
X. Some boilerplate code
Auto-generate read accessors for the 4 instance variables.
LoginModel>>#title ^ 'Login'
LoginModel>>#initialExtent ^ 350 @ 150
LoginModel>>#credentials ^ usernameField text -> passwordField text
I think this is pretty cool. I really can't imagine how much easier, how much less code this should take.
participants (7)
-
Ben Coman -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Johan Fabry -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sebastian Heidbrink -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe