Your cents are valuable! 2009/7/8 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: > 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
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
