> On 27 Aug 2016, at 14:40, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > Hi esteban > > I think that we should identify the main hook points and slowly prepare them. > > The system should be prepared for that so that we just need to pass a context > to configure it.
.. I should have that old package somewhere… it will not work, and it was not very subtle… but it has to be somewhere :) Esteban > > Stef > > > Le 27/8/16 à 14:32, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >> yes, some years ago I made a package for this. >> later Ben tried something similar with the user manager. >> none of those approaches worked as general approach because you need to >> “close” a lot of things… (not just the spotter… which by the way, NEEDS to >> have a setting, no idea who answered you that but he is wrong), and image is >> not prepared for that. >> >> of course is still possible :) >> >> anyway, today I would tackle a solution in a different way: I would open my >> app morph on an SDL2 window and not touch the word at all (opening a >> headless image). This is not possible in windows because when you do >> “headless” it just laugh at you, but is doable in the not-so-long term. >> >> Esteban >> >>> On 27 Aug 2016, at 13:39, Cyril Ferlicot D. <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Le 27/08/2016 à 13:18, stepharo a écrit : >>>> >>>> YES!!! >>>> >>>> Do you know how Settings works? >>>> We can adapt it this way. >>> When I improved the deployment of Synectique Tools I asked to get a >>> simple way to disable Spotter via a setting but I got as answer "No >>> because you can do it by removing a global shortcut so it is not needed.". >>> >>> People in companies don't have the time to learn how shortcuts work and >>> how to remove one without impacting something else. And they don't have >>> the time to check Spotter code to know how it is call. >>> >>> If the image is able to have a deployment mode then I don't care how >>> Spotter is disabled (setting or removing a shortcut). But for now we >>> don't have it. :) >>> >>>> I mean the User approach that Benjmain proposed and was pushed in Pharo >>>> was not good because it was not modular. Now each part of the system >>>> should be >>>> defined in way that it can be set just as a setting. >>>> We should not have >>>> >>>> World .... >>>> User current = ifTrue >>>> >>>> But >>>> >>>> World use: userSetting >>>> >>>> and World should handle it. >>>> There is way more to do :) >>>> When you deploy on linux you should be able to say beSilent to the >>>> system (do not write on places that you cannot). >>>> Valentin works on it and we should continue >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>> The fact that there is much more to do is the main reason for Pharo to >>> do it and not the developer. The developer cannot know all the system >>> and will not be able to protect the code of his company well because he >>> will forget something as to disable ctrl+o+p (or he is a god developer! >>> But everyone is not). >>> >>> This is a large thing to do, so it would be cool that everyone keep that >>> in mind to allow it little by little (as with the work of Valentin). >>> >>> -- >>> Cyril Ferlicot >>> >>> http://www.synectique.eu >>> >>> 165 Avenue Bretagne >>> Lille 59000 France >>> >> >> > >
