[Pharo-project] Is RPackage dead?

Tudor Girba tudor at tudorgirba.com
Sun Oct 30 17:56:15 EDT 2011


On 30 Oct 2011, at 22:43, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 30 October 2011 23:05, Tudor Girba <tudor at tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Wait. The RPackage should not hold more than one category. That is the whole point. If you will allow mapping more than one category to an RPackage, we will either never get rid of categories or we will enter into the messy territory of nested packages. At this time, we certainly do not want the former, and we cannot afford the later.
>> Please, let's keep it simple. There is no point allowing people to create mess by default. There is no practical use case for having this extra stuff. In fact, we know from experience that if we want to manage a larger than trivial system, we need strict conventions. Anything else pretty much fails in the long run.
> I think you looking at this at wrong angle.

I strongly disagree :).

> People can create a mess with any software, no matter what good it is.

Sure. But, the thing is that just because mess is possible, you do not want to make it easy.

> If you deny people from doing the mess within the package , you are
> not solving the problem - you just shifting it into another plane - a
> package management.
> So you forcing people to do the mess at package management level. Fine :)
> But personally, I fail to see why mess with package management
> (dependencies, load order etc) is better than single bloated package
> with lots of categories.
> Because, imposing any strict naming rules is like trying to swim against stream.
> If i want a _single_ package with two categories, like:
> - core
> - utils
> give me a strong reason why i can't have it, and why i have to waste
> my time with package management, if all i need is single package?

So now I think you are looking at the problem in a strange way. You seem to argue that we should optimize the system around toy examples. Almost anything meaningful requires more than that. Let's optimize around what matters.

And regarding wasting time, you will waste much less than now at the moment when Monticello will become transparent as well. In other words, you will simply stay in your code browser and load and publish from there. No mess, no fuss. But to get there easily, we need this 1-to-1 between what is publishable and what is in the image.

Perhaps where you will need some attention is loading order, but when Metacello will get a better integration, many things will be possible. But, we need a stable and simple base.


>> So, I come back to my point. At this point, we can safely load RPackage in the image (actually, in the Moose image, it is always loaded) and have tools be built on top of them. Then in Pharo 1.5 or later we start transitioning by not allowing people to commit more than one Category/RPackage in a Monticello package.
>> It's a smooth transition that can be spread over a longer period of time.
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>> On 30 Oct 2011, at 15:29, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> I agree now this is the path to arrive there that is important to me.
>>> Stef
>>> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>> Stephane, as i said before, i do not see problems with RPackage / naming.
>>>> These things are orthogonal, as to me.
>>>> We can keep naming scheme as we use today, but switch to RPackage.
>>>> A package can keep the list of category names and that's it. They
>>>> could even be completely different, if people want it.
>>>> Say, package is named
>>>> Foo
>>>> and contain categories:
>>>> 'Foo-Core'
>>>> 'Bar'
>>>> The rationale is simple:
>>>> it is up to human(s) to decide what a package should contain, and what
>>>> names to use. Let's just embrace the imperfection and do not dictate
>>>> people
>>>> how they should name their categories in order to make sure that
>>>> classes in that categories will be put into concrete package.
>>>> If people like to confuse themselves with category names, not matching
>>>> the package name , it should be their own choice and responsibility.
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Igor Stasenko.
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.


"What we can governs what we wish."

More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list