November 2013 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Large difference in image size when loading configuration

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Phil, what happens if you evaluate (and save after) to the big image: MCFileBasedRepository flushAllCaches. 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>wrote: > [User.Techlab] â du -hs package-cache > 5.3M package-cache > > Phil > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>wrote: > >> What is the total size of the package-cache, like du -hs ? >> Could it be the same size of the difference in image size ? >> That would mean that the contents of the packages themselves is cached in >> the image... >> >> On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:39, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >> >> > I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. >> > >> > REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main >> > ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack --install=0.4 >> > >> > Everything loads fine. >> > >> > But: >> > >> > with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a >> changes file of: 10.831.877 >> > >> > with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and >> starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a changes >> file of: 10.830.899 >> > >> > That's quite a huge difference. >> > >> > I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then >> fresh image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was >> the same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... >> > >> > 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 >> > 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 >> > >> > Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. >> > >> > But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, apply >> a configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. >> > >> > Why is this difference so large in the first place ? >> > >> > Phil >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] PharoSounds is not heard

by Mariano

The file could be downloded from: http : / / psiware.t28.net / downloads / mainLoopMG2.zip It is a 16bits, mono and 44khz wave file. Best regards, Mariano On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:14:56 -0300, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2013, at 2:57 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > >>> 5. Test if sound works with: >>> FMSound clarinet2 play > > Mariano > > I could only try the code above > May be you should put your Wave file somewhere so that we can try it > >>> (SampledSound fromWaveFileNamed: 'mainLoopMG2.wav') play > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] PharoSounds is not heard

by Mariano

Hi All, I am using the Pharo 3.0, the latest version #30557. The vm used is the one that comes in the zip file, I think that they are the latest stable. Best regards, Mariano On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 04:34:22 -0300, jannik.laval <jannik.laval(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mariano, > > Which Pharo do you use ? > In Pharo 2, your lines of code does not work, but Sound works fine: I > use it in Phratch. > > I did not yet try it in Pharo 3.0 > > Jannik > > On Nov 9, 2013, at 2:57 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > >> >> On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Mariano <marianobadoglio(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I am trying to use sound package, but I couldn't make it work. I >>> didn't get any errors but the sounds is not heard. I tested it on >>> Ubuntu and Windows XP, and in both platform the behavior was the same. >>> >>> What I did is the following: >>> >>> 1. Add the Montichello repository >>> "http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/PharoExtras/Sound/main" >>> >>> 2. Then load the ConfigurationOfPharoSound project. >>> >>> 3. Then evaluate (ConfigurationOfPharoSound project version: '6.0') >>> load. >>> >>> 4. Enable the sound with: SoundSystem soundEnabled: true. >>> >>> 5. Test if sound works with: >>> FMSound clarinet2 play >>> (SampledSound fromWaveFileNamed: 'mainLoopMG2.wav') play >>> >>> I will appreciate if someone could help with this. >> >> On mac it is working and I asked Mariano to check on his machine >> because he was forced to use Squeak instead of Pharo >> because of that :) >> >> Mariano which vm are you using? >> >> Stef >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mariano > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] PharoSounds is not heard

by J.F. Rick

I was able to use the vm-sound-pulse.so from the Squeak VM to get Pharo on Ubuntu to play sound. For whatever reason, it doesn't work anymore. I think the big problem is that sound is based on a 32-bit code and the 64-bit Ubuntu does not work with it. Cheers, Jeff On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:14 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2013, at 2:57 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > 5. Test if sound works with: > FMSound clarinet2 play > > > Mariano > > I could only try the code above > May be you should put your Wave file somewhere so that we can try it > > (SampledSound fromWaveFileNamed: 'mainLoopMG2.wav') play > > > -- Jochen "Jeff" Rick, Ph.D. http://www.je77.com/ Skype ID: jochenrick

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Large difference in image size when loading configuration

by phil＠highoctane.be

[User.Techlab] â du -hs package-cache 5.3M package-cache Phil On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>wrote: > What is the total size of the package-cache, like du -hs ? > Could it be the same size of the difference in image size ? > That would mean that the contents of the packages themselves is cached in > the image... > > On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:39, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > > I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. > > > > REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main > > ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack --install=0.4 > > > > Everything loads fine. > > > > But: > > > > with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a > changes file of: 10.831.877 > > > > with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and > starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a changes > file of: 10.830.899 > > > > That's quite a huge difference. > > > > I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then > fresh image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was > the same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... > > > > 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 > > 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 > > > > Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. > > > > But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, apply a > configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. > > > > Why is this difference so large in the first place ? > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > >

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Refactoring on more than one method

by Tudor Girba

Running a test happens with Cmd+j, cmd+m (for a method), or Cmd+j, cmd+c (for a class). Doru On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > Is cmd-t something different than running a test? > > Norbert > > Am 10.11.2013 um 23:59 schrieb Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: > > > Stef showed me Cmd-t, really really cool! > > Pharo is all moving to a nice direction. > > > > Alexandre > > > > > > On Nov 10, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for sharing positive feedback, and letting us know about new > features we may have missed. > >> This is important too. > >> > >> > >> 2013/11/10 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > >> Hi! > >> > >> Just to share my happiness. > >> > >> I've just tried in Nautilus: > >> 1 - select several methods in a class (keep the Cmd key pressed to do > so) > >> 2 - applying the pulling up refactoring > >> 3 - all the methods I have selected are pulled up, in the superclass > >> > >> It works as a charm. Really cool! I have been waiting for this for many > years... > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alexandre > >> -- > >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Large difference in image size when loading configuration

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

What is the total size of the package-cache, like du -hs ? Could it be the same size of the difference in image size ? That would mean that the contents of the packages themselves is cached in the image... On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:39, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. > > REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main > ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack --install=0.4 > > Everything loads fine. > > But: > > with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a changes file of: 10.831.877 > > with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a changes file of: 10.830.899 > > That's quite a huge difference. > > I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then fresh image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was the same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... > > 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 > 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 > > Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. > > But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, apply a configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. > > Why is this difference so large in the first place ? > > Phil > > > >

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Refactoring on more than one method

by Norbert Hartl

Is cmd-t something different than running a test? Norbert Am 10.11.2013 um 23:59 schrieb Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>: > Stef showed me Cmd-t, really really cool! > Pharo is all moving to a nice direction. > > Alexandre > > > On Nov 10, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for sharing positive feedback, and letting us know about new features we may have missed. >> This is important too. >> >> >> 2013/11/10 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> >> Hi! >> >> Just to share my happiness. >> >> I've just tried in Nautilus: >> 1 - select several methods in a class (keep the Cmd key pressed to do so) >> 2 - applying the pulling up refactoring >> 3 - all the methods I have selected are pulled up, in the superclass >> >> It works as a charm. Really cool! I have been waiting for this for many years... >> >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > >

Nov. 11, 2013

Large difference in image size when loading configuration

by phil＠highoctane.be

I am experiencing the following while loading my configuration. REPO=http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/philippeback/HOWebStack/main ./pharo Pharo.image config $REPO ConfigurationOfHOWebStack --install=0.4 Everything loads fine. But: with a package-cache/ empty, the final image is: 44.452.060 with a changes file of: 10.831.877 with a primed package-cache (meaning, letting the mczs in place and starting with a fresh image), the final image is: 29.480.912 with a changes file of: 10.830.899 That's quite a huge difference. I tried again to be sure (fresh image and empty package-cache, then fresh image only) and, weirdly enough, even if the difference in size was the same, the sizes themselves weren't.the same... 44.446.152 - 10.830.899 29.986.284 - 10.831.543 Maybe that's due to a GC occurring differently between the two. But this gives the impression that one cannot load a base image, apply a configuration, and end up with the same image twice. Weird. Why is this difference so large in the first place ? Phil

Nov. 11, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] files.pharo.org get.pharo.org down.

by kilon alios

dont know if that plays that role but i think i saw here an annoucement that inria would be down on monday. I also tried to get images with pharolauncher and it failed. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>wrote: > > No way to download anything, including from the pharo-project homepage. >

Nov. 11, 2013