Re: Going on, but first some clarification...

Dallas Johnston <[email protected]>:
>

First of all: Sorry if I seemed to write off your efforts on the model
code -- that was not my intention.

> Magnus Lie Hetland <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Indeed... However, I'm not sure that we agree on how this should work.
> >We may have similar ideas, but there are differences, I believe :)
> 
> What I am referring to is the fact the we all agreed before on the
> theory of model behaviour, not necessarily the mechanism of its
> postulate.

OK.

> I do realise, however, that you and Samuele disagree (as
> has been recently conveyed) as to the proper bahaviour of mutable
> numbers and such...
> 
> >> 2) The semantics of the actual initialisation and assignment is
> >> really only peripheral to the issue at hand, and largely subject to
> >> personal bias.
> >
> >Maybe. But it may profoundly affect the semantics of properties in
> >Anygui, something which should not be taken too lightly.
> 
> I think that what I was trying to emphasise was that any one of them
> may work, only that the desired semantics vary according to taste. 

OK. I'm sure you're right.

> -- By the way I would like to add that I don't necessarily think
> that the model/attribute magic is all that pleasing. Incedentally, I
> was just implementing it as I thought you originally desired it to
> be done, i.e. not all that different from the way that models worked
> in the old architecture. In my personal experience I have never had
> models behave in this manner. Models have always been far more
> generic and decoupled,

Right. That's what I was trying to address in the separat proposal
with link().

But I really shouldn't be the main proponent for any specific Model
implementation, since I wasn't among those arguing for their inclusion
in the first place. I'm mainly trying to make them fit the rest of
Anygui :)

> aside from their ability to register
> observers and publish APIs for updating their internal  data
> structures. So, I must admit that what was being aimed for was not
> exactly ideal. I just proposed an implementation for what I thought
> was the target spec. And in light of that, I thought that the
> delegate idea was by far the cleanest way to go about hitting that
> target. Now the target moves =/.

Sorry about that. It may well be that your version is the best -- I
guess I'm just a bit confused by the issue...

[snip]
> Yes, version three does invovle quit a bit of slight of hand... Now
> you see it... now you don't =).

Heh. Yes. On the other hand, it may well be practical. I guess it
depends on how models are to be used (and, as I said, I'm not among
the target audience, really, so...)

> >Or that we drop Models until we have proper use-cases and see how we
> >want them implemented...
> 
> Well, I think that we will have a hard time coming up with any use
> cases for the whole of Anygui, in its current condition.

Really? (If by current condition you mean non-functioning pre-alpha,
then I agree... If you mean release 0.2, I'm not so sure...)

> >> and modify that as we all see fit to represent the greater
> >> consensus.
> >
> >Right. But that should hopefully be done at *least* before we put out
> >a beta... :)
> 
> And I was hoping to get this done before then,

Yup.

> but I'm not going to touch it anymore, as it seems you have already
> decided for everyone that Models, as they are now currently
> implemented, are going to be chucked out the door.

No, no -- I haven't decided anything. I'm just participating in the
discussion. If you have construed my postings as ignoring and not
appreciating your efforts in the model department, I'm sorry. That was
not my intention, and I hope I haven't demotivated you too much :|

-- 
Magnus Lie Hetland        Practical Python          The Anygui Project
http://hetland.org        http://ppython.com        http://anygui.org


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf