--- Begin Message ---
Hello all,
Yes we have both PluggableTextMorph and Rubric so it is a mess.
Yes Rubric was a fork, so a lot of code is duplicated.
I would say just wait that all PluggableTextMorph uses are removed
then we will be able to clean-up things.
Now, remember that I was not so excited by Rubric as the default editor.
Rubric is the past, It should be removed asap with all the crap that it
duplicates.
I would not invest to much time in cleaning and commenting it.
Instead, clean, document and implement tests for TxText.
Cheers
Alain
> On 01 Aug 2015, at 11:22, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Yes the situation with rubric is a real mess :(
> Ideally I would like to throw away text and rub altogether.
> Now I would like to understand what is a good path that minimise
> duplication.
>
> In addition I do not understand why certain class extensions are not the same
> in both packages.
> So I will try to get some time to read code and come with a list of actions.
> If you have some ideas I'm interested.
>
> Stef
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes never said that Rubric is the future. He just improved a bit
>>
>>> 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.
>> True.
>>> 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
>> Yes. I think that alain did it like that. He just wanted to offer some
>> behavior for the Moosers.
>>> 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.
>> Definitively.
>> Nicolai
>> do you have a list of actions?
>> because I would like to do some of them.
>> We could remove the duplicate. This is what we started to do with
>> PluggableTextMorph.
>>
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
