[Cuis] Status of Morphic?

[Phil (list)]

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 10:37 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> 
> (inline)
> On 3/9/2015 6:54 AM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > I've been testing some of my code after migrating to the local
> > coordinate system and am running into a few things:
> >
> > 1) Morph stepping appears to be non-functional (at least in terms of
> > running the code as-is from Cuis 4.0)
> 
> You already found #stepAt: . In any case, the "message names" tool is 
> your friend.
> 

As was FrameRateMorph.

> > 2) Halos are behaving badly on occasion... drawing artifacts, problems
> > resizing, experiencing the odd image crash here and there.
> 
> Please, steps to reproduce.
> 

Working on narrowing down.

> > 3) Specifically related to OpenGL support code, it wants to get the
> > global coordinates of the morph before the morph is actually displayed
> > to set up the OpenGL view.  However, morphBoundsInWorld returns nil if
> > the morph has not been opened... is this still possible via a different
> > method perhaps?
> 
> Well, until the morph is inside some owner, its coordinates are 
> meaningless. This is different from Squeak, I know. And it might require 
> a bit more of thought. I had to fix many places where coordinates were 
> set before adding the morph to some owner...
> 
> If you can send me an image with preloaded code, or rather specific 
> instructions to build one, I'd like to think about this together with 
> you. It is quite likely that we tweak something or add some helpers to 
> Cuis base.
> 

I suspected that might be the case... I'll need to rework the OpenGL /
Morphic integration code.  This is an issue specific to OpenGL which
needs to fake integration of a hardware-backed view in the Squeak
environment so I'm not sure it warrants doing much on the Cuis side as
it can probably be worked around.  IIRC, the issue is that the code this
is based on sizes the OpenGL view to fit in a Morph rather than wrapping
the Morph around the OpenGL view.  Logically simple and it will just
take some work to flip it around.

> > Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised that things are working as well as
> > they are given the minimal amount of rework I've had to do so far given
> > how significant the changes under the hood are.  I just wanted to see if
> > any of these items are already known issues / are already being worked
> > on or if I should start digging in to either try to help fix and/or
> > report bugs via github?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> 
> Bug reports are most welcome. But (as in 3) if the problem is that you 
> don't find the "obvious" way to do something, then working together on 
> the code will most likely give all us better results.
> 

Fair enough, I just thought I'd ask about these specific issues to see
if I was missing anything obvious first.

> Cheers,
> Juan Vletich