March 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] Issue 3833 in pharo: Morph and MorphTreeMorph fixes

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Status: Accepted Owner: Benjamin...(a)gmail.com CC: aplan...(a)gmail.com Labels: Nautilus New issue 3833 by Benjamin...(a)gmail.com: Morph and MorphTreeMorph fixes http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3833 During my tries to understand how drag and drop works, I have found and fixed to minor bugs. There is a cs for each bugs: 1) nil is passed where the method expect a block with 2 args 2) if minor fix to allow drag and in drop inside the same Tree without having to move the cursor outside first Attachments: MorphTreeMorphFixes.1.cs 425 bytes MorphTreeMorphFixes.2.cs 749 bytes

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN 1.2] prebuilt core 1.2 final

by Tudor Girba

Hi Marcus, I completely agree. Now, just one thing. We have to start with putting in place a full fledged dev image as soon as a new Core version is started. Like this we can use that one from the beginning. For example, in Moose we switch to the new version as soon as the dev is available. Cheers, Doru On 18 Mar 2011, at 08:13, Marcus Denker wrote: > >>> >>> Yes, but it was not done for 1.2 and 1.2 is *finished*. >>> >>> If we want to do that, we need to do that *not after the release is released* >>> but before. > > This whole thing just shows that "I only look at 1.2 when it is released" *DOES NOT WORK*. > 1.2 Core was "Release Canditate" for *two months*. Release Canditate means "this will be > released *unchanged* if no problems are found". So isn't *that* the point to do things that > could need a fix in the release? > > I am really tempted to declare 1.3 stable now and abandon any concept of release, as it's > a complete waste of time. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing should have the right to be different."

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Tudor Girba

Hi Stef, Thanks a lot for all this effort. I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best. RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category. The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages. The next step is to provide a tool that provides only a 1-1 mapping between MC and RPackages that we can use for publishing. In this way, we would be able to: - load existing MC without problems - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too. The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping. Cheers, Doru On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > >> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today? And after that, we can improve the way we use it. >> >> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time? Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes... > > yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go. > but the matching semantics is not good. > >> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P >> >> Guille >> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> wrote: >> Stef, >> >> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty. >> >> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack.... >> >> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ... >> >> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ... >> >> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2... >> >> Dale >> >> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> Hi guys >>> >>> we need to think about package: >>> >>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...). >>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement >>> instead. >>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence. >>> >>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because: >>> - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching. >>> - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages >>> - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages >>> so this means that configuration would have to be adapted. >>> >>> - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC. >>> and to have tags to only represent categories. >>> >>> Now my time is short so I will >>> - probably not implement tags >>> - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange >>> code. >>> - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place >>> like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo >>> - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to >>> associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames >>> and change the packages accordingly). >>> - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. >>> >>> So if you have suggestion please talk now. >>> >>> >>> Stef >> >> >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "When people care, great things can happen."

March 19, 2011

[Pharo-project] Woohoo.. Cog not crashing anymore

by Igor Stasenko

Good news everyone (c) :) Currently i am the only happily owner of JIT VM , which no longer crashing while running all Pharo tests... I will prepare new configs and publish them soon. P.S. @Henrik Your MethodContextTest>>testClosureRestart are failing. P.P.S. @Lukas , i made small modifications to your HudsonBuildTools, see an attached changeset. First i introducing a counter, which allows to arrange files in order they run (it is important to know which tests are run before, because it could be possible that crash were caused by combination of tests), and also added stream flushing before running each test case, so if VM will crash, we will observe a half-populated file. So, on Hudson, instead of running: HDTestReport runCategories: Smalltalk organization categories one should run : HDTestReport resetCounter. HDTestReport runCategories: Smalltalk organization categories Please let me know if you willing to integrate this changeset. Maybe in separate subclass, but we should be prepared that tests could crash VM (because we will be testing newly built VMs), so it is important to know which test were causing failure. P.P.S. On second thought, i thinking that it could be made even more direct by overwriting a 'runningCase.txt' file each time we running test.. P.P.P.S. It would be nice to integrate stdout output into images and make stdout == Transcript in headless mode, so running any image in headless mode by default will print stuff on stdout, so we don't need to worry about flushing files etc and can easily see progress via Hudson console output view. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

March 19, 2011

[Pharo-project] Issue 3832 in pharo: allOverriddenMethods returns all the overridden methods not just the one of the package

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Status: Accepted Owner: stephane...(a)gmail.com New issue 3832 by stephane...(a)gmail.com: allOverriddenMethods returns all the overridden methods not just the one of the package http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3832 PackageInfo allInstances first allOverriddenMethods returns all the overridden methods.

March 19, 2011

[Pharo-project] allOverriddenMethods is confusing

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi I just got burned by allOverriddenMethods strange semantics when sent to a packageInfo instance it returns all the methods overrides of the system not the ones in the package. Or I'm silly (highly probable). So may be we are scanning all the system each time we save a package :( Stef

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Method expressed as symbol, used as argument

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi carlo here this is something quite simple based on the fact that a symbol can understand value: and perform the method. This is simple and we can use it for what it does. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Carlo wrote: > I'd read up on Higher Order Messaging as to me this is an application of it. > Googling for it should give you some good results, one of the hits will most likely be a paper co-authored by Stephane which was presented at OOPSLA 2005 if I'm not mistaken. > > Cheers > Carlo > > On 19 Mar 2011, at 3:40 AM, DougEdmunds wrote: > > It was pointed out that given an instance method > MyClass >> doSomething > that > MyClass do: [:each | each doSomething]. > can be expressed as > MyClass do: #doSomething. > > Can someone suggest something to read that explains the usage of # > here (#doSomething), the relation of methods to symbols, etc. > > Trying to wrap my head around it. Thanks. > > -dae > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Method-expressed-as-symbol-used-as-argument-tp3388864… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] SUnit and Tests inheritance or 'Data' injection

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I was suggesting the same as lukas. and yes somebody should design a new Testing frameworks and we keep Sunit for backward compatibility Now have you tried to use traits and inject the parameters as fixture. Because this is what we did for the collection hierarchy. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Stefan Marr wrote: > Hi Lukas: > > On 19 Mar 2011, at 20:19, Lukas Renggli wrote: > >>> Thus, my basic test class implements some 9 tests, and my auto-sizing test-class adds two more test. >>> However, when I run the tests, only 11 tests are executed and not 2*9 + 2 = 20 tests. >>> Is there something I am missing? Is there a way that I can force SUnit to also execute the tests of the superclass? >> >> See the method TestCase class>>#shouldInheritSelectors. > Thanks, thats what I was looking for :) > >>> Or, something that would actually be nice, is there a way that I can automatically parameterize my tests with data? >> >> In your test class create a test method that takes the parameter(s) as >> argument. Create several test methods that call this method with >> different arguments. > Ehm, that approach does not scale... > > My test has currently 9 #testMethods, if I understand your proposal correctly, than I would end up with n*9 methods, no? > With #shouldInheritSelectors it still feels like a hack, but at least I avoid having to create all those methods. > > Laurent, the @DataProvider feature of TestNG is basically what I was looking for: http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#parameters > > Thanks > Stefan > >> >> Lukas >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> > > -- > Stefan Marr > Software Languages Lab > Vrije Universiteit Brussel > Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium > http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr > Phone: +32 2 629 2974 > Fax: +32 2 629 3525 > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today? And after that, we can improve the way we use it. > > In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time? Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes... yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go. but the matching semantics is not good. > But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P > > Guille > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> wrote: > Stef, > > I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty. > > On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack.... > > Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ... > > For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ... > > One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2... > > Dale > > On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > > > Hi guys > > > > we need to think about package: > > > > right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...). > > We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement > > instead. > > RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence. > > > > Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because: > > - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching. > > - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages > > - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages > > so this means that configuration would have to be adapted. > > > > - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC. > > and to have tags to only represent categories. > > > > Now my time is short so I will > > - probably not implement tags > > - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange > > code. > > - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place > > like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo > > - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to > > associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames > > and change the packages accordingly). > > - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. > > > > So if you have suggestion please talk now. > > > > > > Stef > > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Mar 19, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > I have no idea how Rpackage done internally but i think it should be orthogonal > to MC. a list of class and a list of methods smartly organized but no more. > You can implement import/export layers between MC and RPackage > and make it follow any rules you want (current ones), but internal > organization can be completely different. Exact Now reproducing the matching of MC makes everything more complex. > > On 19 March 2011 19:17, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by >> RPackage keeping everything working as today? And after that, we can >> improve the way we use it. >> >> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure >> and behavior at the same time? Doing both together is kind of complex and >> easy to make mistakes... >> >> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P >> >> Guille >> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com> wrote: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 >>> would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within >>> Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other >>> folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files >>> created in Pharo that no longer align with the class and method categories? >>> It will not be pretty. >>> >>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for >>> alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always >>> been a hack.... >>> >>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps >>> RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the >>> packaging schemes ... >>> >>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and >>> those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply >>> continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 >>> packages with a different rule set ... >>> >>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to >>> make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools >>> could be the compelling reason to move to MC2... >>> >>> Dale >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> we need to think about package: >>>> >>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports >>>> well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...). >>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to >>>> remove systemNotifier and use Announcement >>>> instead. >>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it >>>> would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence. >>>> >>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition >>>> because: >>>> - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching. >>>> - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to >>>> packages >>>> - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it >>>> would be turned into several RPackages >>>> so this means that configuration would have to be adapted. >>>> >>>> - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same >>>> contents as the one of loaded by MC. >>>> and to have tags to only represent categories. >>>> >>>> Now my time is short so I will >>>> - probably not implement tags >>>> - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the >>>> necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange >>>> code. >>>> - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because >>>> some logic is not defined in the right place >>>> like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo >>>> - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question >>>> is that there is a problem to rely on categories to >>>> associate classes to packages because we can end up with >>>> overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames >>>> and change the packages accordingly). >>>> - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern >>>> matching. >>>> >>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now. >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >

March 19, 2011