Hi, 

the idea is to replace all old text classes usage, then remove them (and Rubric 
will became the unique text editor in Pharo)
so… I *think* (not sure about it), the duplication of classes is in this case 
on purpose, and a temporal thing.

Esteban

> On 31 Jul 2015, at 12:17, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Maybe I am wrong, but it looks like there are many
> classes and code in rubric that are the same as in the old Text classes.
> 
> Rub is used in GT and now in the Core image. Shouldn't we clean this up
> before it used everywhere?
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> All TextLink classes looks the same (TextClassLink <-> RubTextClassLink)
> 
> MorphAnnouncement subclass: #RubMorphAnnouncement
> RubMorphAnnouncment adds nothing
> 
> FindReplaceService <-> RubFindReplaceService
> They look very similar, I don't understand why so much code is
> just the same in both, why not extract that into a base class?
> (and the same for RubFindReplaceDialogWindow/ FindReplaceDialogWindow
> and some many too)
> 
> RubEditingState / EditingState.
> 
> What this makes it even worse, Rubs class comment doesn't indicate how
> they differ from the old other one.
> 
> It is really difficult to understand,
> - which (Rub)classes were created just because the old TextApi has them, but 
> aren't actually used in the current Rubric framework.
> - wich classes are used but could be replaced with the existing one (TextLink 
> for example)
> - which classes had to be changed, and therefore only the Rub-classes can 
> work with rubric.
> - which classes are similiar named like the old Text classes and share some 
> code but may work
> totally different.
> 
> (For example TextEditor vs. RubTextEditor there are some methods in both that 
> aren't used
> anywhere, it looks like RubTextEditor is just 
> - a copy from TextEditor, 
> - changed where it was needed
> - unchanged otherwise
> 
> Rubric really adds some great new things and if you look at where it is used, 
> it
> is really a great step forward, but the code is in a bad state.
> This needs to be cleaned up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to