Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
> I reread all the emails you exchanged with gary and igor.
> What is a parentNode in AbtsractPreferenceValue?
> This is when you have a composite preference?
yes
> I understood when reading the code of PrefProvider2
>
>> no problem but tell me
>> that I stop working on this.
>>
>> The set of system preferences constitutes a tree of preferences.
>> The model for the tree is implemented by the PreferenceNode hierarchy.
>> (see PrefCore2). This is the only mandatory part.
>> The tree can be visualized with a PreferenceTree UI built on top of
>> PrefCore2 (see PrefTool2 and snapshot).
>> Examples of preference declaration are given in PrefProvider2.
>> in order to open the tree:
>> PreferenceTree open
>
> I have two naive questions:
>     - I imagine that we will be able to reuse the Preference browser 
> and that we do not have to rebuild one?
>     because the pragma preference collector could be put there? Or is 
> it better to rewrite everything?
I guess we can reuse some parts.
>
>     - second I was wondering why you only use <preference> and not 
> <preference:zork:> like in andreas solution?
>     Gary mentioned that some objects can be more complex than mere 
> literal.
and he convinced me not to use <preference:zork:> for  two main reasons
-Only one model for preference in the image (no need to retrieve the 
pragma or to store them in a second model)
-<preference:zork:> is flat, it allow on literals as parameters, so it 
is very difficult to describe composites
>    
> I was wondering if for the interface it would not be better to have 
> cascaded selector instead of
> methods with multiple argument.
>
>     PreferenceNode name: 'HTTP proxy' description: 'http proxy name 
> and port' parent: #networkPreferenceNode
> vs
>     PreferenceNode new
>             name: 'HTTP proxy' ;
>             description: 'http proxy name and port' ;
>             parent: #networkPreferenceNode
ok for me.
>
> So can I summarize your approach as follow?
>
>     - packages can defined locally their preferences (by construction 
> this will be better
>     since people will have to think about preferences value as their 
> stuff. not the one of preference
>     so this will help the flow to be local --- good.
>     - preferences are not centralized anymore (youpi)
>     - tools can register to get notified when preferences changes
>     - preferences can be complex objects
>     - preferences are structured in preferences tree.
exactly
>
> Sounds cool to me. I will let the other give their point of view.
> I'm leaving on vacation now.
>
> Stef
>
> PS: test should be
>
>
>     "self test"
>     PrefChangeListener new inspect.
>     UIPreferences  gradientButtonLook value: UIPreferences 
> gradientButtonLook value not.
>     UIPreferences  gradientButtonLook value: UIPreferences 
> gradientButtonLook value not.
>     UIPreferences  gradientButtonLook value: UIPreferences 
> gradientButtonLook value not.
yes, this is the version you have in PrefListener.5.mcz

alain
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to