On 11 October 2012 23:04, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately it is not only about a layer between Morphic and Spec. > Whole Spec design is greatly conforming to Morphic. Check out Spec > definitions, they look almost like transcription of Morphic calls > > MethodToolbar class >> defaultSpec > <spec> > ^ { #Panel. > #changeTableLayout. > #listDirection:. #rightToLeft. > #addMorph:. {#model. #browseModel.}. > #addMorph:. {#model. #sendersModel.}. > #addMorph:. {#model. #implementorsModel.}. > #addMorph:. {#model. #versionModel. }. > #addMorph:. {#model. #dropListModel.}. > #hResizing:. #spaceFill. > #vResizing:. #shrinkWrap. } > > Of course these methods are implemented only in Morphic classes. Whole > layout management is directly taken from Morphic. And the Spec > definitions are unclear and hard to read. They are composed almost > solely from symbols so it is hard to work with and analyze them with > our development tools. We have such beautiful metalanguage where to > create DSL is so easy... > > In comparison with OmniBrowser the Spec is big step back. Sorry, I do > not want to be ugly but I started this impression when I was working > on Periscope and since that time it is deeper and deeper. >
yess.. do some ass kicking please :) As for omnibrowser.. well I didn't looked at spec code, but what i saw in omnibrowser code didn't impressed me much, like having own subclass for every toolbuilder class. Anyways, UI stuff is tend to be complex no matter how nicely you wrap it.. because it is UI. > Cheers, > -- Pavel > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
