December 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Pharo - [ANN] SimpleDDS v1.0 released.

by Santiago Bragagnolo

Hi guys, i am just releasing SimpleDDS. In order to connect into ROS world i had to implement a DDS support (Publisher/subscriber). For achieving this i did MetaDDS, a library that defines basic objects, announcements, event related mechanisms and data encoding formats, and on top of it SimpleDDS, which is ROS based. SimpleDDS Has a package of examples highly commented for learning how to use it. The comments are also in the Github wiki, as wiki pages: https://github.com/sbragagnolo/SimpleDDS/wiki Gofer it smalltalkhubUser: 'sbragagnolo' project: 'SimpleDDS'; configuration; loadVersion: #stable Here some links about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish%E2%80%93subscribe_pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Distribution_Service Thats it. Enjoy. Santiago

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Thierry Goubier

Le 01/12/2014 21:39, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > > the goal is to not needing to install git command line to use it (is > a requirement: pharo needs to keep being as portable and independent > as always) :) from my point of view, Iâm quite happy with > gitfiletree. I will just intend to make it work without OSProcess. I can understand that intent. > but in other discussions. Yes, we will need to stabilise things in a > point. Iâm not happy with general status ofâ¦ well, a lot of things. > And not in status of stability (most of them work really well), but > Iâm working to try to ensure the maintainability in the long wayâ¦ and > that includes time to time needing to admit that we cannot maintain > everything (thus my push of (git)filetree and the use of git in > general) And I can only thank all the Pharo team for the impressive stability going from Pharo3 to Pharo4. Thierry > Esteban

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Thierry Goubier

Le 01/12/2014 21:53, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > > Iâm also concerned about that (32bits only). But we are already > working on a solution. (and libgit2 support is already there, thanks > to Max). as I saidâ¦ our problem (not yours, but ours) is that we need > to keep pharo independent of installed tools. Soâ¦ libgit2. Otherwise > I would be pushing gitfiletree a lot more loud :) Yes. This is a strong point. I considered bundling a git along, to solve issues like Stephan's. Bundling libgit2 is a bit similar, in a way. Mind you. I do prefer the libgit2 + NativeBoost... but it was far too costly. And still not that portable (i.e. no git on the RaspberryPi, for example). And some of my internal arguments for libgit2 (being able to correctly propagate a Monticello merge into git) were wrong, but it took me time and the MergeDriver to understand why. Thierry

Dec. 1, 2014

[To be merged] GT-InspectorExtensions-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.77

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

In Moose/GToolkit: === Name: GT-InspectorExtensions-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.77 Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe Time: 1 December 2014, 9:56:58.104994 pm UUID: 3da8544f-909e-49c6-88a5-f944a5f13b42 Ancestors: GT-InspectorExtensions-Core-TudorGirba.76 New version of Float>>#gtInspectorFloatIn: that shows the new binary presentation available in Pharo 4. Tests on availability of #binaryLiteralString so that this change should remain compatible with Pharo 3. Thx Kris Gybels for this contribution. === To be merged with higher versions (this was based on the version present in Pharo 4 today). Sven

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 01 Dec 2014, at 21:48, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 01/12/2014 21:04, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> >>> On 01 Dec 2014, at 20:25, Dale Henrichs >>> <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com >>> <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier >>> <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>> >>> >>> also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop >>> something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does >>> not scales. >>> >>> >>> But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo >>> platform by having to redesign the file format as well. >>> >>> >>> Thierry, >>> >>> Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) >> >> he was, donât worry :) > > Maybe I was :) > >> and as an aswer: yes, Iâm not happy with filetree format, but I wouldnât >> spend changing it until we have ready other parts of the tooling I think >> is necessary (using libgit2 instead osprocess for me is a must, while >> changing filetree format is just an enhancement) > > When I considered libgit2 a while ago, I was like you: a must. Then I saw that: libgit2 was low-level => lot's of code in Pharo do do simple, basic stuff. libgit2 required changes in NativeBoost => what, NativeBoost isn't ready? Pharo is stuck in 32bits land=>No libgit2 by default on target OS. NativeBoost is x86 only? No libgit2 on ARM. Iâm also concerned about that (32bits only). But we are already working on a solution. (and libgit2 support is already there, thanks to Max). as I saidâ¦ our problem (not yours, but ours) is that we need to keep pharo independent of installed tools. Soâ¦ libgit2. Otherwise I would be pushing gitfiletree a lot more loud :) Esteban > > In short: I don't have the resources to do that. It's too expensive for the benefits. I'm impressed by Max and your dedication. > >> butâ¦ in the not so far future the metadata *needs* to change, Iâm sorry. >> Merging in complex project (more than one developer, in fact) can become >> a pain if we do not improve thatâ¦ even with mergetools from Thierry, is >> too complicated). > > The way you say it, I wonder if you understand what the MergeDriver is supposed to solve (and what it isn't). You'll have to say more ;) > > (especially the bit about the merge of large projects/multiple developers being too complicated...) > > Thierry > >> Esteban >> > >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Thierry Goubier

Le 01/12/2014 21:04, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >> On 01 Dec 2014, at 20:25, Dale Henrichs >> <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com >> <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier >> <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> >> >> also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop >> something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does >> not scales. >> >> >> But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo >> platform by having to redesign the file format as well. >> >> >> Thierry, >> >> Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) > > he was, donât worry :) Maybe I was :) > and as an aswer: yes, Iâm not happy with filetree format, but I wouldnât > spend changing it until we have ready other parts of the tooling I think > is necessary (using libgit2 instead osprocess for me is a must, while > changing filetree format is just an enhancement) When I considered libgit2 a while ago, I was like you: a must. Then I saw that: libgit2 was low-level => lot's of code in Pharo do do simple, basic stuff. libgit2 required changes in NativeBoost => what, NativeBoost isn't ready? Pharo is stuck in 32bits land=>No libgit2 by default on target OS. NativeBoost is x86 only? No libgit2 on ARM. In short: I don't have the resources to do that. It's too expensive for the benefits. I'm impressed by Max and your dedication. > butâ¦ in the not so far future the metadata *needs* to change, Iâm sorry. > Merging in complex project (more than one developer, in fact) can become > a pain if we do not improve thatâ¦ even with mergetools from Thierry, is > too complicated). The way you say it, I wonder if you understand what the MergeDriver is supposed to solve (and what it isn't). You'll have to say more ;) (especially the bit about the merge of large projects/multiple developers being too complicated...) Thierry > Esteban >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 01 Dec 2014, at 21:15, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 01/12/2014 20:25, Dale Henrichs a Ã©crit : >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier >> <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> >> >> also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop >> something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not >> scales. >> >> >> But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo >> platform by having to redesign the file format as well. >> >> >> Thierry, >> >> Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) > > I wish I was :( > >> I just don't see how the current FileTree format "delays git integration >> in the Pharo platform." > > This is exactly my point. It works, it is cross-platform (mcz to FileTree and back), it has a significant bug squashing done, it's stable. > > Yes, it's not perfect. Metadata is noisy in github output, it used to cause problem when merging, and there is issues with very long path and file names. > > However, all discussions about changing the file format around Pharo brings no convincing arguments... just cosmetic changes, which basically says: lets do the same as before, but not compatible and with a new code base so that we can have our own new bugs. > > (If I had to redesign the file format for git use, I'd consider FileOut with a better parser, and alphabetical ordering: minimal code for reading and writing. But I'd loose some of the features that tODE has when querying the git logs). > >> I consider git integrated into tODE and tODE uses FileTree. >> >> Perhaps it's a matter of approach. In tODE the git support is NOT >> centered on the package browser ... the git support is built into the >> "system browser" so you can look at git history from a class, method OR >> package perspective ... Other perspectives are possible as it is >> relatively straightforward to pull up the git history of any directory >> or file ... and git integration should include the ability to view diffs >> and merge non-smalltalk files... > > I agree. But you are at the point where you just say: > > "libgit2 or GitFileTree are just means to an end: better tools to tap in the power of git and do something interesting with it." > > Look the situation of Pharo... They are still trying to get the infrastructure working. Yes, libgit2 will be better than GitFileTree, but barely, and how many years will Pharo have invested for that? In the mean time, what should I invest in? A GitFileTree which will be wasted anyway? And in a few years time, will NativeBoost still be in use? Or replaced by FFI and LowCode? With libgit2 reimplemented? With no support of libgit2 on ARM? > > And for what? The goal is to hide git behind any package and source management tools we have in the image, after all. well, no. the goal is to not needing to install git command line to use it (is a requirement: pharo needs to keep being as portable and independent as always) :) from my point of view, Iâm quite happy with gitfiletree. I will just intend to make it work without OSProcess. but in other discussions. Yes, we will need to stabilise things in a point. Iâm not happy with general status ofâ¦ well, a lot of things. And not in status of stability (most of them work really well), but Iâm working to try to ensure the maintainability in the long wayâ¦ and that includes time to time needing to admit that we cannot maintain everything (thus my push of (git)filetree and the use of git in general) Esteban > >> A package is just one of the artifacts that is stored in a git >> repository. Monticello packages have Monticello characteristics ... >> Cypress packages without Monticello meta data[1] are another package >> format and they have slightly different characteristics than Monticello >> packages and they are equally supported by tODE. [To be fair the Cypress >> package support is still experimental but a year ago I was doing active >> development using tODE and Cypress packages in conjunction with >> Monticello packages]. >> >> FileTree intentionally supports Monticello-style packages so that the >> FileTree packages can leverage the existing Monticello-based tools like >> Metacello (I had to extend Metacello to support Cypress-based packages) >> or the Monticello Browser. >> >> So at the end of the day, I think that git integration for Pharo depends >> upon a broader approach to integrating git-based tools throughout the >> tool eco-system. >> >> Once you start looking at a chunk of versioned disk as containing more >> than just Smalltalk source code there a numerous possibilities for >> building in-image tool support for distributing, sharing and maintaining >> documentation, workspaces, plugins, deployment scripts, etc. way beyond >> the limitations of a package ... > > Yes, this is it: that focus is interesting. That's why I refer to tODE when I say you are showing us the way on git. But Pharo is a long way from being that ambitious. > > Thierry > >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Thierry Goubier

Le 01/12/2014 20:25, Dale Henrichs a Ã©crit : > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier > <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > > > also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop > something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not > scales. > > > But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo > platform by having to redesign the file format as well. > > > Thierry, > > Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) I wish I was :( > I just don't see how the current FileTree format "delays git integration > in the Pharo platform." This is exactly my point. It works, it is cross-platform (mcz to FileTree and back), it has a significant bug squashing done, it's stable. Yes, it's not perfect. Metadata is noisy in github output, it used to cause problem when merging, and there is issues with very long path and file names. However, all discussions about changing the file format around Pharo brings no convincing arguments... just cosmetic changes, which basically says: lets do the same as before, but not compatible and with a new code base so that we can have our own new bugs. (If I had to redesign the file format for git use, I'd consider FileOut with a better parser, and alphabetical ordering: minimal code for reading and writing. But I'd loose some of the features that tODE has when querying the git logs). > I consider git integrated into tODE and tODE uses FileTree. > > Perhaps it's a matter of approach. In tODE the git support is NOT > centered on the package browser ... the git support is built into the > "system browser" so you can look at git history from a class, method OR > package perspective ... Other perspectives are possible as it is > relatively straightforward to pull up the git history of any directory > or file ... and git integration should include the ability to view diffs > and merge non-smalltalk files... I agree. But you are at the point where you just say: "libgit2 or GitFileTree are just means to an end: better tools to tap in the power of git and do something interesting with it." Look the situation of Pharo... They are still trying to get the infrastructure working. Yes, libgit2 will be better than GitFileTree, but barely, and how many years will Pharo have invested for that? In the mean time, what should I invest in? A GitFileTree which will be wasted anyway? And in a few years time, will NativeBoost still be in use? Or replaced by FFI and LowCode? With libgit2 reimplemented? With no support of libgit2 on ARM? And for what? The goal is to hide git behind any package and source management tools we have in the image, after all. > A package is just one of the artifacts that is stored in a git > repository. Monticello packages have Monticello characteristics ... > Cypress packages without Monticello meta data[1] are another package > format and they have slightly different characteristics than Monticello > packages and they are equally supported by tODE. [To be fair the Cypress > package support is still experimental but a year ago I was doing active > development using tODE and Cypress packages in conjunction with > Monticello packages]. > > FileTree intentionally supports Monticello-style packages so that the > FileTree packages can leverage the existing Monticello-based tools like > Metacello (I had to extend Metacello to support Cypress-based packages) > or the Monticello Browser. > > So at the end of the day, I think that git integration for Pharo depends > upon a broader approach to integrating git-based tools throughout the > tool eco-system. > > Once you start looking at a chunk of versioned disk as containing more > than just Smalltalk source code there a numerous possibilities for > building in-image tool support for distributing, sharing and maintaining > documentation, workspaces, plugins, deployment scripts, etc. way beyond > the limitations of a package ... Yes, this is it: that focus is interesting. That's why I refer to tODE when I say you are showing us the way on git. But Pharo is a long way from being that ambitious. Thierry

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 01 Dec 2014, at 20:25, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: > Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > > also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop > something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not scales. > > But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo platform by having to redesign the file format as well. > > > Thierry, > > Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) he was, donât worry :) and as an aswer: yes, Iâm not happy with filetree format, but I wouldnât spend changing it until we have ready other parts of the tooling I think is necessary (using libgit2 instead osprocess for me is a must, while changing filetree format is just an enhancement) butâ¦ in the not so far future the metadata *needs* to change, Iâm sorry. Merging in complex project (more than one developer, in fact) can become a pain if we do not improve thatâ¦ even with mergetools from Thierry, is too complicated). Esteban > > I just don't see how the current FileTree format "delays git integration in the Pharo platform." > > I consider git integrated into tODE and tODE uses FileTree. > > Perhaps it's a matter of approach. In tODE the git support is NOT centered on the package browser ... the git support is built into the "system browser" so you can look at git history from a class, method OR package perspective ... Other perspectives are possible as it is relatively straightforward to pull up the git history of any directory or file ... and git integration should include the ability to view diffs and merge non-smalltalk files... > > A package is just one of the artifacts that is stored in a git repository. Monticello packages have Monticello characteristics ... Cypress packages without Monticello meta data[1] are another package format and they have slightly different characteristics than Monticello packages and they are equally supported by tODE. [To be fair the Cypress package support is still experimental but a year ago I was doing active development using tODE and Cypress packages in conjunction with Monticello packages]. > > FileTree intentionally supports Monticello-style packages so that the FileTree packages can leverage the existing Monticello-based tools like Metacello (I had to extend Metacello to support Cypress-based packages) or the Monticello Browser. > > So at the end of the day, I think that git integration for Pharo depends upon a broader approach to integrating git-based tools throughout the tool eco-system. > > Once you start looking at a chunk of versioned disk as containing more than just Smalltalk source code there a numerous possibilities for building in-image tool support for distributing, sharing and maintaining documentation, workspaces, plugins, deployment scripts, etc. way beyond the limitations of a package ... > > Dale > > [1] https://github.com/rjsargent/CypressReferenceImplementation <https://github.com/rjsargent/CypressReferenceImplementation> > > >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] ubuntu vm build

by Markus Fritsche

Hello Norbert, I tried using the copy feature - can you check if it worked? Kind regards Markus On 01.12.2014 19:36, Norbert Hartl wrote: > Hi, > > I forgot who is maintaining the ubuntu launchpad ppa vm build. But whoever you are ( :) ) would it be possible to include a vm build for the actual ubuntu release utopic unicorn? > > thanks, > > Norbert > >

Dec. 1, 2014