I looked at it and
I do not like the magic of the block and arguments
and the scripting aspects
Veronica showed me that she does not use long scripts.
Still I do not see how we extend browsers. We discussed that during the PhD
meal at bern with lukas
and I'm still not convinced.
Now if people want to load glamour perfect. Now I do not have any spare cycles
to maintain it. My plate is full. For now I would like to have a good way to
build and reuse Morphic widgets not to
create another layer on top.
Stef
On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let's take this on the Pharo mailing list.
>
> I do think that Glamour should be considered for being part of the Pharo
> infrastructure. At least the Core and the basic Morphic rendering (i.e.,
> without Mondrian, EyeSee and Magritte).
>
> And I also think your analysis is not accurate. Here is why (I apologize for
> the long list):
>
> 1. Glamour is quite well documented. There is a chapter describing it. There
> are a tone of examples documenting all sorts of features. There comments are
> not as good as they could be, but there are comments, and I can help
> documenting more.
>
> 2. It is quite well tested. This part can be improved, but the core has some
> 80% coverage.
>
> 3. I am not the only one that knows how to mingle with it. To give some
> examples, Jorge, Damien (Cassou) and Esteban helped fixing some intricate
> bugs directly in the core. Lukas built the first Seaside rendering quite
> fast. I would also mention that as a student, Andrei Chis took about 1 month
> of work to produce a working version of a Seaside rendering almost from
> scratch. So, maybe it's not that difficult.
>
> 4. The core is quite stable since more than 1 year. There were changes, but
> they were mostly related to bug fixes.
>
> 5. The main point of using this infrastructure is not to replace Morphic, but
> it is to limit the maintenance of the browsers, and to empower more people to
> build more browsers. For example, the Glamorous Inspector has less than 200
> lines of code in total. This is really tiny for the amount of things it
> offers. And it is highly extensible, too.
>
> 6. It's actually not that large: the core has 36 classes, and if you consider
> all the other presentations, helper classes and specialized browsers (but
> without the rendering code), you get some 93 classes.
>
> 7. But, perhaps the most important part is that there have been literally
> hundreds of browsers built on top of it. Not all of them are useful now, but
> they were when they were built. And it seems that people can build one quite
> fast without much knowledge of the internals either. That is the whole point
> of this infrastructure. Esteban even used it for building commercial
> applications. I built a couple, too. The whole of Moose is now using this
> infrastructure, too.
>
>
> I am not saying that Glamour is perfect. There are quite a couple of things I
> would like to enhance (for example, the request ideas from Omnibrowser, or
> the wizard workflows from Merlin), but it has proved to be quite solid until
> now.
>
> So, before dismissing Glamour, perhaps it would be useful to actually look
> into it.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> On Dec 31, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stef,
>>>
>>> You seem to say that it is bad that Glamour provides a good infrastructure
>>> that appeals to people. Maybe a better conclusion is that Glamour is
>>> something to be considered for the infrastructure of Pharo.
>>
>> Do you think so?
>> I do not think that we can base our infrastructure on something that only
>> one person understand and can modify.
>> You will tell that this is the same for Morphic but this is not true.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Beauty is where we see it."
>
>
>
>
