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

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Sep 2012, at 14:56, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com> wrote: > Maybe also there should be a different setting for when tests are run, and/or adding deprecations to the TestRunner result > eg. 15 deprecations, 0 run, 0 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 unexpected passes That sounds like a good idea ! -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello bleedingEdge question

by Dale Henrichs

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Igor Stasenko

On 30 September 2012 10:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Yes, Transcript will be too slow. > > Actually, I didn't look carefully at the Deprecation class. > It has show/raise warning options and a simple way to collect deprecations with #deprecationsWhile: > Maybe I should run production code with > > Deprecation raiseWarning: false. > > This is of course a global setting. > > Your idea with the window sounds cool but how/when are you going to show it ? And what about headless ? > You show it if it not already open, and if you hit deprecated method. In headless mode, warnings is simply written to debug log/console. (but for speed reasons, we should also write them only once per deprecation, i think). > On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:24, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 29 September 2012 23:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> Guys, >>> >>> So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all went well ! >>> >>> But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from #includesSubString: (for Seaside). >>> >>> I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). >>> >>> I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned on. >>> >> >> Putting transcript is possible only for non-performance critical methods. >> Put it in wrong place, and it will crawl like slug .. >> So, we need a kind-of non-interfering deprecation. >> >> I am all for having less intrusive deprecation system. >> IMO, to fix deprecation (if developer really cares), one needs only >> the method which sends the deprecated message, bringing a full >> Debugger is overkill in 99% of cases. >> >> What can we do is to make a nice wrapping around this, so if running >> code hits deprecated method, >> it should bring a special popup window titled 'deprecated methods >> used' or something, >> and if user will click on the button there, he can see the list of >> methods which having send sites which hit deprecated methods, i.e. a >> list populated from pairs: >> >> MyClass>>foo using deprecated SystemClass>>deprecatedBar >> >> clicking on that entry will open a browser in #foo method, where you can fix it. >> >> (sure thing, if method #foo runs millions of times, it should not >> produce millions of very same entries >> in that list. we only interested in unique sender->receiver pairs. >> And run-time check for that is far less expensive comparing printing >> that stuff on transcript every time). >> >> To speed things up even more, we can even just do this on a first hit, >> and then recompile deprecated method to not do any checks but perform >> only what they exist for. But this will require some dark magic, >> either with compiler, or using method wrappers of some sort. >> >> At the end, what we have is a system simply runs as usual, except from >> small window, which (if users care to click on) will bring the list of >> deprecations hit so far. >> >>> It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly renames'. And less external stuff would break. >>> >>> What do you think ? >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> -- >>> Sven Van Caekenberghe >>> http://stfx.eu >>> Smalltalk is the Red Pill >>> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Ben Coman

Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>wrote: > > >> Yes, Transcript will be too slow. >> >> Actually, I didn't look carefully at the Deprecation class. >> It has show/raise warning options and a simple way to collect deprecations >> with #deprecationsWhile: >> Maybe I should run production code with >> >> Deprecation raiseWarning: false. >> >> > > I was going to suggest you that. It is also accesible from the Settings UI. > BTW, maybe we should do this in #cleanUpForProduction? > Maybe also there should be a different setting for when tests are run, and/or adding deprecations to the TestRunner result eg. 15 deprecations, 0 run, 0 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 unexpected passes > > >> This is of course a global setting. >> >> Your idea with the window sounds cool but how/when are you going to show >> it ? And what about headless ? >> >> On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:24, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 September 2012 23:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> Guys, >>>> >>>> So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a >>>> >> single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside >> 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all >> went well ! >> >>>> But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from >>>> >> #includesSubString: (for Seaside). >> >>>> I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for >>>> >> situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting >> multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this >> case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a >> special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it >> (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). >> >>>> I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on >>>> >> the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned >> on. >> >>> Putting transcript is possible only for non-performance critical methods. >>> Put it in wrong place, and it will crawl like slug .. >>> So, we need a kind-of non-interfering deprecation. >>> >>> I am all for having less intrusive deprecation system. >>> IMO, to fix deprecation (if developer really cares), one needs only >>> the method which sends the deprecated message, bringing a full >>> Debugger is overkill in 99% of cases. >>> >>> What can we do is to make a nice wrapping around this, so if running >>> code hits deprecated method, >>> it should bring a special popup window titled 'deprecated methods >>> used' or something, >>> and if user will click on the button there, he can see the list of >>> methods which having send sites which hit deprecated methods, i.e. a >>> list populated from pairs: >>> >>> MyClass>>foo using deprecated SystemClass>>deprecatedBar >>> >>> clicking on that entry will open a browser in #foo method, where you can >>> >> fix it. >> >>> (sure thing, if method #foo runs millions of times, it should not >>> produce millions of very same entries >>> in that list. we only interested in unique sender->receiver pairs. >>> And run-time check for that is far less expensive comparing printing >>> that stuff on transcript every time). >>> >>> To speed things up even more, we can even just do this on a first hit, >>> and then recompile deprecated method to not do any checks but perform >>> only what they exist for. But this will require some dark magic, >>> either with compiler, or using method wrappers of some sort. >>> >>> At the end, what we have is a system simply runs as usual, except from >>> small window, which (if users care to click on) will bring the list of >>> deprecations hit so far. >>> >>> >>>> It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly >>>> >> renames'. And less external stuff would break. >> >>>> What do you think ? >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe >>>> http://stfx.eu >>>> Smalltalk is the Red Pill >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >>> >> >> > > >

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>wrote: > Yes, Transcript will be too slow. > > Actually, I didn't look carefully at the Deprecation class. > It has show/raise warning options and a simple way to collect deprecations > with #deprecationsWhile: > Maybe I should run production code with > > Deprecation raiseWarning: false. > I was going to suggest you that. It is also accesible from the Settings UI. BTW, maybe we should do this in #cleanUpForProduction? > > This is of course a global setting. > > Your idea with the window sounds cool but how/when are you going to show > it ? And what about headless ? > > On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:24, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 29 September 2012 23:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> Guys, > >> > >> So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a > single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside > 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all > went well ! > >> > >> But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from > #includesSubString: (for Seaside). > >> > >> I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for > situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting > multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this > case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a > special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it > (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). > >> > >> I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on > the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned > on. > >> > > > > Putting transcript is possible only for non-performance critical methods. > > Put it in wrong place, and it will crawl like slug .. > > So, we need a kind-of non-interfering deprecation. > > > > I am all for having less intrusive deprecation system. > > IMO, to fix deprecation (if developer really cares), one needs only > > the method which sends the deprecated message, bringing a full > > Debugger is overkill in 99% of cases. > > > > What can we do is to make a nice wrapping around this, so if running > > code hits deprecated method, > > it should bring a special popup window titled 'deprecated methods > > used' or something, > > and if user will click on the button there, he can see the list of > > methods which having send sites which hit deprecated methods, i.e. a > > list populated from pairs: > > > > MyClass>>foo using deprecated SystemClass>>deprecatedBar > > > > clicking on that entry will open a browser in #foo method, where you can > fix it. > > > > (sure thing, if method #foo runs millions of times, it should not > > produce millions of very same entries > > in that list. we only interested in unique sender->receiver pairs. > > And run-time check for that is far less expensive comparing printing > > that stuff on transcript every time). > > > > To speed things up even more, we can even just do this on a first hit, > > and then recompile deprecated method to not do any checks but perform > > only what they exist for. But this will require some dark magic, > > either with compiler, or using method wrappers of some sort. > > > > At the end, what we have is a system simply runs as usual, except from > > small window, which (if users care to click on) will bring the list of > > deprecations hit so far. > > > >> It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly > renames'. And less external stuff would break. > >> > >> What do you think ? > >> > >> Sven > >> > >> -- > >> Sven Van Caekenberghe > >> http://stfx.eu > >> Smalltalk is the Red Pill > >> > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Igor Stasenko. > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I'm in favor of anything smoothing migration. Ideally I would love to have refactorings recorded. Stef > Guys, > > So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all went well ! > > But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from #includesSubString: (for Seaside). > > I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). > > I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned on. > > It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly renames'. And less external stuff would break. > > What do you think ? > > Sven > > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > > >

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Yes, Transcript will be too slow. Actually, I didn't look carefully at the Deprecation class. It has show/raise warning options and a simple way to collect deprecations with #deprecationsWhile: Maybe I should run production code with Deprecation raiseWarning: false. This is of course a global setting. Your idea with the window sounds cool but how/when are you going to show it ? And what about headless ? On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:24, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 September 2012 23:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> Guys, >> >> So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all went well ! >> >> But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from #includesSubString: (for Seaside). >> >> I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). >> >> I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned on. >> > > Putting transcript is possible only for non-performance critical methods. > Put it in wrong place, and it will crawl like slug .. > So, we need a kind-of non-interfering deprecation. > > I am all for having less intrusive deprecation system. > IMO, to fix deprecation (if developer really cares), one needs only > the method which sends the deprecated message, bringing a full > Debugger is overkill in 99% of cases. > > What can we do is to make a nice wrapping around this, so if running > code hits deprecated method, > it should bring a special popup window titled 'deprecated methods > used' or something, > and if user will click on the button there, he can see the list of > methods which having send sites which hit deprecated methods, i.e. a > list populated from pairs: > > MyClass>>foo using deprecated SystemClass>>deprecatedBar > > clicking on that entry will open a browser in #foo method, where you can fix it. > > (sure thing, if method #foo runs millions of times, it should not > produce millions of very same entries > in that list. we only interested in unique sender->receiver pairs. > And run-time check for that is far less expensive comparing printing > that stuff on transcript every time). > > To speed things up even more, we can even just do this on a first hit, > and then recompile deprecated method to not do any checks but perform > only what they exist for. But this will require some dark magic, > either with compiler, or using method wrappers of some sort. > > At the end, what we have is a system simply runs as usual, except from > small window, which (if users care to click on) will bring the list of > deprecations hit so far. > >> It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly renames'. And less external stuff would break. >> >> What do you think ? >> >> Sven >> >> -- >> Sven Van Caekenberghe >> http://stfx.eu >> Smalltalk is the Red Pill >> > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Sept. 30, 2012

[Pharo-project] [update 2.0] #20316

by Marcus Denker

20316 ----- Issue 6746: Failing Test: TestCaseTest.testAssertEqualsActualAndExpectedOrder http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=6746 -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Sept. 30, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Igor Stasenko

On 29 September 2012 23:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Guys, > > So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all went well ! > > But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from #includesSubString: (for Seaside). > > I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). > > I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned on. > Putting transcript is possible only for non-performance critical methods. Put it in wrong place, and it will crawl like slug .. So, we need a kind-of non-interfering deprecation. I am all for having less intrusive deprecation system. IMO, to fix deprecation (if developer really cares), one needs only the method which sends the deprecated message, bringing a full Debugger is overkill in 99% of cases. What can we do is to make a nice wrapping around this, so if running code hits deprecated method, it should bring a special popup window titled 'deprecated methods used' or something, and if user will click on the button there, he can see the list of methods which having send sites which hit deprecated methods, i.e. a list populated from pairs: MyClass>>foo using deprecated SystemClass>>deprecatedBar clicking on that entry will open a browser in #foo method, where you can fix it. (sure thing, if method #foo runs millions of times, it should not produce millions of very same entries in that list. we only interested in unique sender->receiver pairs. And run-time check for that is far less expensive comparing printing that stuff on transcript every time). To speed things up even more, we can even just do this on a first hit, and then recompile deprecated method to not do any checks but perform only what they exist for. But this will require some dark magic, either with compiler, or using method wrappers of some sort. At the end, what we have is a system simply runs as usual, except from small window, which (if users care to click on) will bring the list of deprecations hit so far. > It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly renames'. And less external stuff would break. > > What do you think ? > > Sven > > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 29, 2012

[Pharo-project] String>>includesSub[S|s]tring: - do we need another kind of deprecation ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Guys, So yesterday I deployed a new server based on an #20309 image, with a single Metacello config for my code, and a separate manual load for Seaside 3.1 (which I use as an interface to work with the headless image) - and all went well ! But I had to apply one manual hack: remove the deprecation from #includesSubString: (for Seaside). I feel like we need another, more silent kind of deprecation for situations like this. Library/framework/application writers targetting multiple Pharo versions are being hit way too hard by this, for - in this case certainly -, no good reason. Creating two versions (I introduced a special package Pharo-Forward-Compatibility just for this), is not worth it (unless you absolutely want the best Pharo 2.x code like I do). I would imagine something similar to Deprecation which maybe prints on the Transcript, but is otherwise silent, except when some switch is turned on. It would give us the power to deprecate much more things even 'silly renames'. And less external stuff would break. What do you think ? Sven -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill

Sept. 29, 2012