[Pharo-dev] It would be too expensive to add a description for packages in Configuration Browser?
Hernán Morales Durand
hernan.morales at gmail.com
Sun Dec 8 17:37:20 EST 2013
El 08/12/2013 19:04, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
> Hi Hernan,
> the problem is not the button - but the missing standard and
> standardized descriptions
> on the configs...
I see. Let's attack the real problem then.
> For instance I also write markup docu on my configs (see
> ConfigurationOfINIFile) - it
> is loadable as a usual config but adds two class side methods:
> and #tutorialOn: using the <onlineTutorial> pragma.
> The documentation is stored as class comment in markdown format on the
> ConfigurationOfINIFile class. I use the same description then for the
> STHub project page.
I am not a big fan of pragmas, but if people is fine with them I can
parse the markup. However I imagine that would require a parser
preloaded in the image...
> If one loads additionally the "PharoOnlineHelp" package afterwards it
> will also appear
> magically in my Pharo online help as a tutorial. This was my proposal -
> but so far it looks
> like nobody is really interested.
> Maybe because often this ends in "which syntax" discussions and due to
> the lack of
> good in image default text display facilities for markup, pier-syntax, ...
Please let's take a decision and live with it. The real point is that
only a friendly String saying "The selected package does this" would
improve usability, specially for newcomers.
Do not forget we can just enforce a method in the ConfigurationOf...
^ 'My purpose is to blabla'
> In general it can be done easily, but we have to agree on some kind of
> "common standard"
> for configurations and documentation on
> - how to describe a package (also the format, either markdown or pier
> syntax with http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pier/Pillar
> - how to name the methods or pragmas that are used
> Stef also did something (with Catalog), the ConfigurationOfINIFile for
> instance has two supporting
> methods: #catalogDescription and #repositoryUrlString.
> Still Catalog uses Pier and is not really visible - and STHub does
> support markdown by default.
Ok, just waiting for a decision here.
> As of today I would like to see Pharo moving into the following direction:
> - using the configs for describing the help/documentation/package
> - also tagging with package categories (for instance there are
> packages/projects for "database access", others for "parsers", or "games")
> - maybe use pier syntax for descriptions (it can be parsed by Pillar
> and other formats like HTML, markdown, Latex, ... be generated)
> - generate pages like catalog
> but with a better design and visibility like
> together with a loadable list for the config browser
> - when one uploads such a ConfigurationOfMyKillerApp to STHub it
> should automagically update the
> STHub description (which is currently only possible via the web
> - additional rankings (number of downloads like on STHub, successful
> CI builds, member rankings, ...)
> - automated verfication
> - ... <snip>lot of other ideas</snip>
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 08. Dezember 2013 um 22:12 Uhr
> *Von:* "Hernán Morales Durand" <hernan.morales at gmail.com>
> *An:* "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Pharo-dev] It would be too expensive to add a
> description for packages in Configuration Browser?
> Hi Torsten,
> 2013/12/8 Torsten Bergmann <astares at gmx.de>
> The reason is simple: when I wrote the config browser
> there was no such additional description on the configs itself
> and one would have to load the config into the image first.
> Think of 2000 config's (note each is a package) loading in the
> future when
> the config browser opens. This will take ages. I think this is not good
> since the app should be responsive.
> Maybe a "show details" button helps when the package is selected.
> I agree (see attached screenshot). I have added the button but the thing
> is: Package can be fetched from the repository, but there is no package
> description. There are only textual descriptions of commits.
> So anyone see any workaround here?
> I would rather see:
> 1. Either a simple hosted seaside app "Pharo Store" that one can
> use to
> register a config for a specific pharo version (similar like
> maybe directly from the STHub interface with description, ...
> This app can be queried by the config browser (JSON/XML/Fuel/...)
> to display infos on the package, maybe also a rating about
> downloads, ...
> 2. Or a general mechanism that loads the configs, runs tests and if
> OK provides them for the config browser as "yes these config
> really work"
> Absolutely. Configurations should be certified.
More information about the Pharo-dev