August 2012 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Mariano I would suggest not to add the system Tanker but to develop it outside for now. Else we will have to change it all the time. Stef On Aug 5, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > > > What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be used it is an internal class of MC). > > Ok, let me clarify something. First, let's decide where we discuss. Ok, here, not in the issue tracker. There you said: "You should not rely on MC layer for fuel.". First, it is not Fuel, it is Tanker. Second, the only think Tanker relies on is in a user-provided set of classes and extension methods. However, there is a separate package that helps using Tanker from RPackage or PackageInfo. Right now, if you have MCPackage X, and then categories X-A, X-B and X-C, then you have 3 RPackages. That's why I was talking about a "MCPackage mapping". If in the future, this is one RPackage then perfect. What I need to do is to have a RPackage for X where I ask classes and extension methods and it answers me also the included by its categories (X-A, X-B and X-C). To have that, is why I am using now #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. > > > > > > > > > PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. > > > So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a > > > compatible interface. > > > All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only serve as purpose to help temporary > > > backwards compat. > > > > > > > > > I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods > > > > Mariano if RPackage represents a MCPackage then RPackage offers all the correct queries to get the classes extended, method extensions and so > > let me know if you do not see it because I payed extreme attention to that. > > > > RPackage>>defineMethodsForClass: > > definedSelectorForClass: > > extendedClassames > > extendedClasses > > extensionMethods > > extensionMethodsForClass: > > extensionSelectors > > extensionSelectorsForClass: > > methodsForClass: > > selectorsForClass: > > > > Let me repeat it. We do not need the compatibility layer. > > Now it may be that (since rpackage was pushed fast in the image) that the importer from PackageInfo to Rpackage did not cover all the cases > > but this is clearly another issue. > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Aug 5, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > > > What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be used it is an internal class of MC). > > Ok, let me clarify something. First, let's decide where we discuss. Ok, here, not in the issue tracker. There you said: "You should not rely on MC layer for fuel.". First, it is not Fuel, it is Tanker. Second, the only think Tanker relies on is in a user-provided set of classes and extension methods. However, there is a separate package that helps using Tanker from RPackage or PackageInfo. Right now, if you have MCPackage X, and then categories X-A, X-B and X-C, then you have 3 RPackages. That's why I was talking about a "MCPackage mapping". If in the future, this is one RPackage then perfect. What I need to do is to have a RPackage for X where I ask classes and extension methods and it answers me also the included by its categories (X-A, X-B and X-C). To have that, is why I am using now #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. Mariano before RPackage fully works we cannot promise anything. So I suggest to test tanker only on package without X-A patterns then in addition making progress on that front: - helping for package-info tag import - do not use MCPackage - do not use the compatibility layer of RPackage Sorry but this is the only answer I have right now. First fixing the systemAnnouncer to fully work then slowly checking packageInfo api then cleaning PackageOrganizer then rethinking the import of RPackage and map fucking categories to tags). then ... Stef

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:54 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > Is this the reason why when I built my package tree in the AltBrowser, I get four packages (X, X-A, X-B, X-C) but X contains all the classes of X-A, X-B and X-C ? Which package classes? because MC use a pattern matching based on category names and explicitly MCworking copy So if you declare an MC package we name X and X-A indeed you are in trouble. The point with RPackage is to avoid the pattern matching approach of MC and to get rid of the scan of all categories. > Is this the reason why, in the current Alt-Browser packages, there is an auto-creation of an Alt package when you load it ? > > I also get confused by the relation between class categories and packages. Is there a plan to get rid of class categories ? yes > At the moment, if you create then unload a package, the system categories stay behind (Pharo 2.0). > > Thierry > ________________________________________

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Monticello changes not working

by Sean P. DeNigris

EstebanLM wrote > > not all the time, but yes, some times it happens to me too > Anybody have a reproducible case? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Monticello-changes-not-working-tp4643184p4643198.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Aug. 5, 2012

[Pharo-project] Integrating Issue 6524: StartupPreferences loads non-Smalltalk files

by Sean P. DeNigris

Issue 6524: StartupPreferences loads non-Smalltalk files http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=6524 I'd like to get this integrated ASAP. Thanks, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Integrating-Issue-6524-StartupPreferences-loads-non-S… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Monticello changes not working

by Esteban Lorenzano

not all the time, but yes, some times it happens to me too Esteban On Aug 5, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys. I am the only one that noticies that "Changes" is showing whatever but the correct changes? > I think this is a stop-the-world-issue because I cannot commit anything because I cannot really see and make sure of what I changed. > You should not merge ether if you cannot clearly see what has been changed. > > thanks > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

Aug. 5, 2012

[Pharo-project] Monticello changes not working

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi guys. I am the only one that noticies that "Changes" is showing whatever but the correct changes? I think this is a stop-the-world-issue because I cannot commit anything because I cannot really see and make sure of what I changed. You should not merge ether if you cannot clearly see what has been changed. thanks -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > > > What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing > categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three > RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from > categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding > tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be > used it is an internal class of MC). > Ok, let me clarify something. First, let's decide where we discuss. Ok, here, not in the issue tracker. There you said: "You should not rely on MC layer for fuel.". First, it is not Fuel, it is Tanker. Second, the only think Tanker relies on is in a user-provided set of classes and extension methods. However, there is a separate package that helps using Tanker from RPackage or PackageInfo. Right now, if you have MCPackage X, and then categories X-A, X-B and X-C, then you have 3 RPackages. That's why I was talking about a "MCPackage mapping". If in the future, this is one RPackage then perfect. What I need to do is to have a RPackage for X where I ask classes and extension methods and it answers me also the included by its categories (X-A, X-B and X-C). To have that, is why I am using now #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. > > > > > > PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. > > > So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it > will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a > > > compatible interface. > > > All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only > serve as purpose to help temporary > > > backwards compat. > > > > > > > > > I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then > RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a > MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and > #allDefinedExtensionMethods > > > > Mariano if RPackage represents a MCPackage then RPackage offers all the > correct queries to get the classes extended, method extensions and so > > let me know if you do not see it because I payed extreme attention to > that. > > > > RPackage>>defineMethodsForClass: > > definedSelectorForClass: > > extendedClassames > > extendedClasses > > extensionMethods > > extensionMethodsForClass: > > extensionSelectors > > extensionSelectorsForClass: > > methodsForClass: > > selectorsForClass: > > > > Let me repeat it. We do not need the compatibility layer. > > Now it may be that (since rpackage was pushed fast in the image) that > the importer from PackageInfo to Rpackage did not cover all the cases > > but this is clearly another issue. > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Aug. 5, 2012

[Pharo-project] RE : About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by GOUBIER Thierry

Is this the reason why when I built my package tree in the AltBrowser, I get four packages (X, X-A, X-B, X-C) but X contains all the classes of X-A, X-B and X-C ? Is this the reason why, in the current Alt-Browser packages, there is an auto-creation of an Alt package when you load it ? I also get confused by the relation between class categories and packages. Is there a plan to get rid of class categories ? At the moment, if you create then unload a package, the system categories stay behind (Pharo 2.0). Thierry ________________________________________ De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm(a)gmail.com] Date d'envoi : dimanche 5 aoÃ»t 2012 14:44 Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage AFAIK, we decided (because that was the best migration path possible), when you have packages X, X-A, X-B, X-C, just to keep package "X", then add class tags (A, B, C) to corresponding classes. Of course that also means that we need to update tools (nautilus) to show that tags, but thats no so difficult. Esteban On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:33 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > >> What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be used it is an internal class of MC). > > > >>> PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. >>> So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a >>> compatible interface. >>> All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only serve as purpose to help temporary >>> backwards compat. >>> >>> >>> I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods >> >> Mariano if RPackage represents a MCPackage then RPackage offers all the correct queries to get the classes extended, method extensions and so >> let me know if you do not see it because I payed extreme attention to that. >> >> RPackage>>defineMethodsForClass: >> definedSelectorForClass: >> extendedClassames >> extendedClasses >> extensionMethods >> extensionMethodsForClass: >> extensionSelectors >> extensionSelectorsForClass: >> methodsForClass: >> selectorsForClass: >> >> Let me repeat it. We do not need the compatibility layer. >> Now it may be that (since rpackage was pushed fast in the image) that the importer from PackageInfo to Rpackage did not cover all the cases >> but this is clearly another issue. >> >> Stef >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> > >

Aug. 5, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About the migration from PackageInfo to RPackage

by Esteban Lorenzano

AFAIK, we decided (because that was the best migration path possible), when you have packages X, X-A, X-B, X-C, just to keep package "X", then add class tags (A, B, C) to corresponding classes. Of course that also means that we need to update tools (nautilus) to show that tags, but thats no so difficult. Esteban On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:33 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > >> What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be used it is an internal class of MC). > > > >>> PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. >>> So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a >>> compatible interface. >>> All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only serve as purpose to help temporary >>> backwards compat. >>> >>> >>> I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods >> >> Mariano if RPackage represents a MCPackage then RPackage offers all the correct queries to get the classes extended, method extensions and so >> let me know if you do not see it because I payed extreme attention to that. >> >> RPackage>>defineMethodsForClass: >> definedSelectorForClass: >> extendedClassames >> extendedClasses >> extensionMethods >> extensionMethodsForClass: >> extensionSelectors >> extensionSelectorsForClass: >> methodsForClass: >> selectorsForClass: >> >> Let me repeat it. We do not need the compatibility layer. >> Now it may be that (since rpackage was pushed fast in the image) that the importer from PackageInfo to Rpackage did not cover all the cases >> but this is clearly another issue. >> >> Stef >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> > >

Aug. 5, 2012