>> > > Yes, absolutely, but that is totally independent of whether reflective > capabilities still exist in the system. > > Hey, maybe after #respondsTo: is removed, one of the kids will fix that > method: > > self allMorphs do: [:p | > ((p class methodDictionary includesKey: #accept) and: [ > (p class methodDictionary includesKey: > #hasUnacceptedEdits) and: [ > p hasUnacceptedEdits]]) ifTrue: [p accept]]
What we see here is the fact that we use submorphs as a general container and query it we avoid bookkeeping of dedicated containers pointing for example to textMorphs. So we trade bookkeeping for runtime checks and on top of that we also get complex Morph API (but that part can be ok I'm not convinced that all the morphs should understand accept). We do not do that when we build seaside application. We use instance variable to point to the right set of objects. I would really like to know what is the real cost of having this extra list of morph that can understand the accept messages. How many times in the same morph you may have multiple containers for dedicated morphs in addition to the submorphs ones. Stef
