25 Apr
2011
25 Apr
'11
6:46 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> wrote:
On 04/25/2011 09:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
I don't know that neither.
Hi Dale. I guess you are already aware of...but
... SUPPOSE that Glamour
is enough for your needs. Glamour can result in plain Morphic but also
in seaside. So would be able to have both flavors: image based in
Glamour for those who want everything image based, and a web alternative
(for example for Gemstone).
But...I have no idea how stable/complete the GlamourWeb is, nor if it
contains what you need.
And finally, did you consider SeasideXUL ? But I guess it may happens
what you don't want: spend more time in the framework than in your job :(
I don't have Glamour ported to GemStone (has it been ported to Squeak?) and
I don't know if I gain in the end ... Can one build a wizard in Glamour ?
... I've spent a lot of time trying to bend OmniBrowser to my will, but
there are some things that are just not easy to do in OmniBrowser ... I
don't know myself if Glamour can do what i have in mind or how much bending
to my will it will take:)
If someone built a wizard in Glamour for creating a
complex configuration
(like Seaside or Moose) then it might be enough to motivate my to attempt
the port:)
But if is up to me, I am going to go with something I already know (I just
don't have enough time to do what I know, let alone what I don't know)
I already pretty much know what I would have to do to do a wizard for a web
browser ...
I appreciate the suggestions to use framework x, y, or z to solve the
problem, but I am not an expert in any of the frameworks, and if a framework
isn't ported to GemStone is it worth porting the framework to GemStone only
to find that it doesn't fill the bill? Conversely if I build the wizard in
technology z and then find out that it is very difficult to port to
GemStone, where am I?
If fact, what I was thinking is that from Glamour you can generate the
Seaside output, so for Gemstone you don't need to port anything, just use
the seaside components generated from Glamour (be careful, this is how I
think Glamour-seaside works but maybe I am wrong and you need glamour
anyway)
Using a web framework I am very confident that I could
get a model/ui built
that does the job and is portable to all three platforms ... I can't say
that (with confidence) for any other approach...
Sure. But it is realy really bad to see we don't have a single way of
creating portable browsers/wizzard or whatever they are called between 3
dialects.
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
26 Apr
26 Apr
11:01 p.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user
interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse
and manipulate data.
I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of
use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be
interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish.
Cheers,
Doru
On 25 Apr 2011, at 18:46, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> wrote:
On 04/25/2011 09:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi Dale. I guess you are already aware of...but ... SUPPOSE that Glamour
is enough for your needs. Glamour can result in plain Morphic but also
in seaside. So would be able to have both flavors: image based in
Glamour for those who want everything image based, and a web alternative
(for example for Gemstone).
But...I have no idea how stable/complete the GlamourWeb is, nor if it
contains what you need.
And finally, did you consider SeasideXUL ? But I guess it may happens
what you don't want: spend more time in the framework than in your job :(
I don't have Glamour ported to GemStone (has it been ported to Squeak?) and I
don't know if I gain in the end ... Can one build a wizard in Glamour ? ... I've
spent a lot of time trying to bend OmniBrowser to my will, but there are some things that
are just not easy to do in OmniBrowser ... I don't know myself if Glamour can do what
i have in mind or how much bending to my will it will take:)
I don't know that neither.
If someone built a wizard in Glamour for creating a complex configuration (like Seaside
or Moose) then it might be enough to motivate my to attempt the port:)
But if is up to me, I am going to go with something I already know (I just don't have
enough time to do what I know, let alone what I don't know)
I already pretty much know what I would have to do to do a wizard for a web browser ...
I appreciate the suggestions to use framework x, y, or z to solve the problem, but I am
not an expert in any of the frameworks, and if a framework isn't ported to GemStone is
it worth porting the framework to GemStone only to find that it doesn't fill the bill?
Conversely if I build the wizard in technology z and then find out that it is very
difficult to port to GemStone, where am I?
If fact, what I was thinking is that from Glamour you can generate the Seaside output, so
for Gemstone you don't need to port anything, just use the seaside components
generated from Glamour (be careful, this is how I think Glamour-seaside works but maybe I
am wrong and you need glamour anyway)
Using a web framework I am very confident that I could get a model/ui built that does the
job and is portable to all three platforms ... I can't say that (with confidence) for
any other approach...
Sure. But it is realy really bad to see we don't have a single way of creating
portable browsers/wizzard or whatever they are called between 3 dialects.
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
11:27 p.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user
interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse
and manipulate data.
I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list
of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be
interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish.
Cheers,
Doru
What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is
the only framework supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because
OmniBrowser was architected with a small intefact between Morphic and
the Browser model, I was able to "make it work" with GemStone as the
server and Pharo as the client ...
Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ...
The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex
configurations, including conditional packages ... the works ... I have
a concept of how I'd like to accomplish this, but it has not fully
emerged as something that I can completely articulate ... I haven't
drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my brain:)
The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable
by the +Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are
performed in a series of dialog boxes, so just putting the individual
operations into a single window with forms fill out for textual items
and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial specification ...
This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of
specifying something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included
packages are specified and specs are moved around between conditional
sections ... Projects are dropped onto the version window from a list of
projects and then the basic template (name, configuration name and
repository) can be editted expanded ...
Dale
11:45 p.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
dale
nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a
validation too.
Stef
On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user
interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse
and manipulate data.
I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list
of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be
interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish.
Cheers,
Doru
What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework
supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a
small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it
work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ...
Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ...
The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations,
including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to
accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely
articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my
brain:)
The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the
+Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of
dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms
fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial
specification ...
This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying
something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and
specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the
version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration
name and repository) can be editted expanded ...
Dale
11:56 p.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
Nick, Doru,
I am obviously interested in this ... The current OmniBrowser-based
"remote tools suite" for GemStone is adequate, but not ideal ... the cut
point for the interface between GemStone and Pharo (the client GUI) is
at the update:/changed: layer which can be VERY CHATTY across the wire ...
I am intrigued by the idea of javascript-browser-based tools, but
development tools in the browser will have to be "different" than the
traditional image-based tools, just because the browser itself is
different ...
I would like to understand where the basic cut point for Glamour is and
find out if there is a natural point to "insert the wire" between the
Morphic-window and the server ...
Since GemStone has no native gui, all tools must be remote:)
Dale
On 04/26/2011 02:45 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
dale
nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a
validation too.
Stef
On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user
interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse
and manipulate data.
I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list
of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be
interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish.
Cheers,
Doru
What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework
supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a
small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it
work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ...
Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ...
The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations,
including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to
accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely
articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my
brain:)
The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the
+Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of
dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms
fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial
specification ...
This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying
something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and
specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the
version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration
name and repository) can be editted expanded ...
Dale
27 Apr
27 Apr
2:01 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an
example, take the following steps:
1. download
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
2. run:
WAKom startOn: 8081
3. go to:
http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
Cheers,
Doru
On 26 Apr 2011, at 23:56, Dale Henrichs wrote:
Nick, Doru,
I am obviously interested in this ... The current OmniBrowser-based "remote tools
suite" for GemStone is adequate, but not ideal ... the cut point for the interface
between GemStone and Pharo (the client GUI) is at the update:/changed: layer which can be
VERY CHATTY across the wire ...
I am intrigued by the idea of javascript-browser-based tools, but development tools in
the browser will have to be "different" than the traditional image-based tools,
just because the browser itself is different ...
I would like to understand where the basic cut point for Glamour is and find out if there
is a natural point to "insert the wire" between the Morphic-window and the
server ...
Since GemStone has no native gui, all tools must be remote:)
Dale
On 04/26/2011 02:45 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
dale
nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a
validation too.
Stef
On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user
interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse
and manipulate data.
I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list
of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be
interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish.
Cheers,
Doru
What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework
supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a
small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it
work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ...
Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ...
The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations,
including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to
accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely
articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my
brain:)
The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the
+Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of
dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms
fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial
specification ...
This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying
something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and
specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the
version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration
name and repository) can be editted expanded ...
Dale
2:22 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an
example, take the following steps:
1. download
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
2. run:
WAKom startOn: 8081
3. go to:
http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
Cheers,
Doru
I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if
Glamour can be used to construct the configuration wizard:)
I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy...
Did I provide you with enough info for the use case?
Dale
2:27 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
Hi Dale,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Not really :).
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Beauty is where we see it."
Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an
example, take the following steps:
1. download
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
2. run:
WAKom startOn: 8081
3. go to:
http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
Cheers,
Doru
I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be
used to construct the configuration wizard:)
I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy...
Did I provide you with enough info for the use case?
3:23 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Dale,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote:
okay?
On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Not really :). Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an
example, take the following steps:
1. download
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
2. run:
WAKom startOn: 8081
3. go to:
http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
Cheers,
Doru
I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be
used to construct the configuration wizard:)
I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy...
Did I provide you with enough info for the use case?
10:38 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
Hi,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 03:23, Dale Henrichs wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
I re-read the original mail, and indeed there is enough information :). I will try to give
it a try. What I saw is that there is basically no dependency between steps. Is that
correct? If yes, then all steps would fit in a simple Magritte form.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
Hi Dale,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote:
okay? On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Not really :). Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an
example, take the following steps:
1. download
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
2. run:
WAKom startOn: 8081
3. go to:
http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
Cheers,
Doru
I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be
used to construct the configuration wizard:)
I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy...
Did I provide you with enough info for the use case?
11:04 a.m.
New subject: [Metacello] MetacelloBrowser ui...
On Apr 27, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 03:23, Dale Henrichs wrote:
The challenging aspects of the wizard involve allowing a user to select from a list of
repositories (for the repository information), from a (filtered) list of packages and a
list of projects when building the basic specs to be included in a baseline.
At the next level of complexity, one must be allowed to define dependencies (required:)
between packages and put the specs in different for:do: blocks ... Within the Metacello,
there is an API and a model for managing these, but I a m sure that the API/model can be
improved when we get to this point.
So I suppose that the initial wizard could be done in Magritte...
Dale
On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
I re-read the original mail, and indeed there is enough information :). I will try to
give it a try. What I saw is that there is basically no dependency between steps. Is that
correct? If yes, then all steps would fit in a simple Magritte form. Hi Dale,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote:
okay? On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi Dale,
>
> Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short
description:
> http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering
>
> We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour.
For an example, take the following steps:
>
> 1. download
>
http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSucces…
>
> 2. run:
> WAKom startOn: 8081
>
> 3. go to:
> http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be
used to construct the configuration wizard:)
I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy...
Did I provide you with enough info for the use case?
Not really :).
4758
days inactive
4760
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dale Henrichs -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
stephane ducasse -
Tudor Girba