My 2 cents:

compiler should always work together with requestor:

Compiler compile: some thing requestor: aRequestor.

Then it could always ask, aRequestor if its interactive, or not,
but i think, Compiler could live just well without such knowledge at
all - each time it needs some extra data - it can simply ask the
requestor to handle such particular situation, in a fashion like
following:

Compiler>>compileError: error
  ^ requestor handleError: error ifUnhandled: [ error signal ]

all we need is just carefully establish protocol between Compiler and
requestor object, so then making interactive/non-interactive/partly
interactive will be completely independant from Compiler.

2009/7/7 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>:
> Hi Pavel
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> every UIManager may have its own preference about this behaviour
>> (for example the dummy ui manager has no user input). It is cleaner
>> solution than to set interactivity for every Compiler instance or
>> for the Compiler class.
>
> In fact I have the impression that this is the same pattern than with
> preference class.
> We are now making sure that the Preference layer can be remove by
> removing references from within the package to the Preference
> class and we turn into a flow from the preference class to push value
> to the tools default value.
>
> Similarly we prefer  that the UIManager pushes information to the
> compiler and not that the compiler rely on
> UIManager. I would like to think about a Compiler been able to run
> standalone without UI.
>
> Now we could have
>
> UIManager>> setUpForNonInteraction
>
>                Compiler setInNonInteractiveMode
>                ,...
>                other class
>
> and Compiler code
> referring to itself (its value for non interaction)
>
> This way we could even remove completely the UIManager.
>
> Else I think that UIManager will become another huge facade that we
> cannot remove.
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- Pavel
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]
>> > wrote:
>> pavel I was wondering why you want to have interactiveParserFor: in
>> UIManager and not in Compiler?
>>
>> May be I missed something but I'm ready to learn.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > From: Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]>
>> > Date: July 6, 2009 2:26:56 PM CEDT
>> > To: stephane ducasse <[email protected]>
>> > Subject: issue 348
>> >
>> > Hi Stef,
>> >
>> > I updated the issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?
>> > id=348
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > -- Pavel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pharo-project mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

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

Reply via email to