I've integrated your changes in the latest Pier.
Thank you for submitting the patch.
Lukas
On 18 February 2010 07:47, Reza RAZAVI <razavi(a)acm.org> wrote:
At 21:40 17/02/2010, Lukas Renggli wrote:
It could well be that the current implementation is not as strait
forward as it could be. Over the time Magritte and Pier both changed
quite heavily and maybe it could be done simpler today?
Hi Lukas,
Most of the complexity is related to the layers of abstraction that
necessarily come into play when implementing such a sophisticated and
flexible system. However, in this specific case roles and responsibilities
could probably be made a little bit more explicit. A quick fix is suggested
attached. It is based on the following ideas:
1) Give a name to the different portions of the logic, and dispatch their
implementation to responsible objects. This helps by making object
collaboration flows more explicit (while providing also application
developers with more hooks to override that specific portion of code, based
on their specific requirements).
2) PRComponents have a structural role, where WAComponents have a visual
role. It could help to make this distinction explicit in the code naming
conventions. For example, PRStructuralComponent instead of PRComponent, and
WAVisualComponent instead of WAComponent.
Regards,
Reza
_______________________________________________
Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki