2015-03-24 13:54 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I think I might have misunderstood your mail :). > > Tthe intention behind Brick is not to be a separate framework but an > internal tool for GT. At least not now, and at least not before we > investigate how we get to the end goal of having a vectorial canvas (hence > Bloc). Is this satisfying? >
Yes, thank you! > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-03-24 12:37 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi Nicolai, >>> >>> I am surprised by your conclusion that the current Brick implementation >>> disqualifies it from being part of the Core :) >>> >> >> not the implementation, the uncertainty of its purpose - a GT private >> implementation / a public framework. >> >> >>> >>> >>> All in all, you should see Brick as a pragmatic intermediary step >>> towards removing Morph. I agree that it can be better (what cannot be), but >>> I disagree we should discard GT because of it. >>> >> >> I did not say "discard GT" . Brick is in the image, but I don't want to >> have it in the >> core image *as another UI-library* next to what we already have - without >> cleaning that up. >> >> You know the questions on the mailing list about what framework to use >> for creating an application:pure Morphic/Polymorph/Spec/Glamour, >> and yes I am sure people will come and ask "hey how can I create such >> cool looking application like spotter". >> It is already difficult for new people to step in, and get an idea how to >> work in pharo, or find information about the different frameworks. >> >> Nicolai >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >
