March 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

collecting Pharo 4.0 Contributors

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Iâm collection the list of contributors for this version. Since we detect contributors by author stamps: - some times who made the commit does not reflect all the people who worked on a problem, - we consider contributors to Pharo all people who has contributed in any way: discussing things, commenting bugs, doing videos or any kind of documentation, etc. the list will be incomplete, so please look for yourself on it and let me know if you are missing: also, I would like to know who are this two guys: - aaef - monty (btwâ¦ we collected so far 76 contributorsâ¦ not bat at all, for a dead language ;) ) Clara Allende Jean Baptiste Arnaud Philippe Back Clement Bera Alexandre Bergel Torsten Bergmann Vincent Blondeau Noury Bouraqadi Santiago Bragagnolo Johan Brichau Sven Van Caekenberghe Damien Cassou Nicolas Cellier Guido Chari Dimitris Chloupis Andrei Chis Ben Coman Bernardo Contreras Tommaso Dal Sasso Jan Van De Sandt Christophe Demarey Sean DeNigris Marcus Denker Martin Dias Stephane Ducasse Stephan Eggermont Luc Fabresse Johan Fabry Hilaire Fernandes Jerome Garcia Tudor Girba Thierry Goubier Kris Gybels Norbert Hartl Dale Henrichs Pablo Herrero Nicolai Hess Pavel Krivanek Juraj Kubelka Jan Kurs Laurent Laffont Jannik Laval Kevin Lanvin Max Leske David Lewis Diego Lont Esteban Lorenzano Esteban Maringolo Stefan Marr Tim Mackinnon Max Mattone Martin Mc Clure Eliot Miranda Sean De Nigris Alain Plantec Guillermo Polito Damien Pollet Stefan Reichhart Mark Rizun Udo Schneider Ignacio Sniechowski Henrik Sperre Johansen Igor Stasenko Aliaksei Syrel Ciprian Teodorov Camille Teruel Sebastian Tleye Yuriy Tymchuk Peter Uhnak Andres Valloud Sven Van Caekenberghe Thomas Vincent Martin Walk Richard Wettel thanks, Esteban

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] GLMBrick whats next?

by Nicolai Hess

2015-03-24 13:54 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I think I might have misunderstood your mail :). > > Tthe intention behind Brick is not to be a separate framework but an > internal tool for GT. At least not now, and at least not before we > investigate how we get to the end goal of having a vectorial canvas (hence > Bloc). Is this satisfying? > Yes, thank you! > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-03-24 12:37 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> Hi Nicolai, >>> >>> I am surprised by your conclusion that the current Brick implementation >>> disqualifies it from being part of the Core :) >>> >> >> not the implementation, the uncertainty of its purpose - a GT private >> implementation / a public framework. >> >> >>> >>> >>> All in all, you should see Brick as a pragmatic intermediary step >>> towards removing Morph. I agree that it can be better (what cannot be), but >>> I disagree we should discard GT because of it. >>> >> >> I did not say "discard GT" . Brick is in the image, but I don't want to >> have it in the >> core image *as another UI-library* next to what we already have - without >> cleaning that up. >> >> You know the questions on the mailing list about what framework to use >> for creating an application:pure Morphic/Polymorph/Spec/Glamour, >> and yes I am sure people will come and ask "hey how can I create such >> cool looking application like spotter". >> It is already difficult for new people to step in, and get an idea how to >> work in pharo, or find information about the different frameworks. >> >> Nicolai >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Update question

by Ben Coman

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > kilon.alios wrote > > I tried it a few times, and had nothing but problems with it. We have > > discussed here several times and from what I have learned there several > > technical limitation. > > I don't think Kilon was referring to PhaoLauncher, but to "World > System > Software update" cheers -ben I initially had a bad experience as well. I probably didn't give it a fair > trial, but also IIRC at that time the image folder was not configurable. > Anyway, I had a much different experience with the latest version. I keep > it > in "Development Mode" (available in the settings) so I have full access to > the IDE. > > <http://forum.world.st/file/n4814762/Screenshot_2015-03-24_09.png> > > >

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Update question

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 24.03.2015 um 12:41 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > > PharoLauncher manage all your images and dl new images directly from the CI server. PharoLauncher is written in Pharo and can be adapted to your own needs ;-) > So there is nothing to gain. My use cases are completely different. I don't want my images to be managen in one place. I have a lot of projects that have their own project folder where they live with other resources and they are organized in a directory structure that makes sense. My point was preventing the installation of my stuff in a new image everytime. One project is a lot of stuff to load and adjust and for that I'd like to just update the image. So to me it appears PharoLauncher is just able to make my situation worse :) Norbert > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 24 mars 2015, at 12:38, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >> >> What would be better using PharoLauncher? >> >> Norbert >> >>> Am 24.03.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>> Don't update use PharoLauncher instead ! I use PharoLauncher everyday for my work and I download new images every 2-3 days. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 24 mars 2015, at 11:13, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >>>> >>>> Today I wanted (again) to update my image and it can't find GT packages. So I'm interested how the community deals with that. Do you take fresh downloaded images regularly? Or you do not update? Is it just me? >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> Norbert >> >> >

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Which one to use? [WAS: Re: GLMBrick whats next?]

by Thierry Goubier

2015-03-24 15:27 GMT+01:00 Alain Plantec via Pharo-dev < pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org>: > > > ---------- Message transfÃ©rÃ© ---------- > From: Alain Plantec <alain.plantec(a)yahoo.com> > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:27:18 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Which one to use? [WAS: Re: GLMBrick whats next?] > Hello Thierry, > > > Le 24 mars 2015 Ã 15:24, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> a > Ã©crit : > > > > One of the problem is that the Morphic replacement will probably be less > than Morphic was (or was intended to be) :( > > why do you think so ? > Because we're doing a rewrite, with no uses of the specifics of what Morphic uses. So whatever usage of a pattern of code, or of layout or display that was special to Morphic, will disappear: nobody will keep dead code which only exercise a corner case of Morphic alone. IMHO, Rubrics, just from it's layout approach, is already a step backward. Who knows why a Morph does z-ordering of its submorphs in the reverse order of all other gui toolkits? Has Bloc kept that? Why should it keep it? It's messing up Spec gui building. It will be disappear. Thierry > Cheers > Alain > > > > > You'll probably tell me that for the kind of work we're doing in UI with > Pharo, we don't need the power of Morphic and I'd agree with you. > > > > Still, I will miss the demise of Morphic. > > > > Thierry > > > >

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slots and MethodWrappers

by Mariano Martinez Peck

You can try to use a special slot for the 'methodDict' instVar of Behavior and implement another way of doing method wrappers through that slot class, but I am sure the VM won't be happy ;) On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > > I would say that they are different although related. Slots are for the > interception of accessing instance variables (for read and write), and > method wrappers for the interception of accessing methods (for execution). > > On Mar 24, 2015, at 09:02, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > I wondered how these two things are related. > > Will slots be giving MWs facilities out of the box? > > When should I use both? > > Phil > > > > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- > > Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Which one to use? [WAS: Re: GLMBrick whats next?]

by Alain Plantec

Hello all, I think you should consider what is mature and what is in the image now. now we have Spec with Morphic, Morphic without Spec as an alternative, GT Tool framework (with Brick), Glamour. Regarding text editing we have Rubric. My fault, someone (sorry I donât remember who) proposed to work on its integration (PluggableTextMorph replacement). As an answer, I said that I wouldnât do it because of TxText. TxText is really cool but not fully integrated. Thus, maybe it was a mistake to not replace PluggableTextMorph with Rubric. And now yes, as a fork of PluggableTextMorph, Rubric brings a lot of code duplication. I guess we will have to live with that for a while. Cheers Alain > Le 24 mars 2015 Ã 14:29, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > There is a big diffirence between Morphic and the other. Morphic is a full solution and mature one as well. The others , with the exception of Bloc , try to wrap things up or offering better solution to some areas. > > The one thing I don't understand is why improving Morphic or even redesigning it is not even on the table. Looks to me like the least painful scenario. Unless thats the intention of Bloc to be the next generation of Morphic. In that case I am all for Bloc. > > I am in a dilemma myself, I am currently deep into interfacing pharo with python for my project Ephestos but I will need to consider a GUI API soon. Spec is out of the question since I dont like the desing and does not support custom made GUIs which is what I want. Brick is as far as I understand an extension to morphic and not usable. Which leaves me with 2 candidates Morphic and Bloc. > > The one thing I really like about Bloc is that it is vectorial which is the kind of custom GUI I want to create but it will also have to be fast and since its related to Athens, Athens has proven very slow for my needs. So I am considering sticking to Morphic and make the GUI pseudo vectorial using bitmaps. In any case the situation is far from ideal . But I really like to push something forward (preferably Bloc or a new Morphci) and I would hate it if I go creating my own solution but that is a very likely scenario too. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > And wellâ¦ I think Nicolai is right in a point (not the fault of Brick, btw): current status is far from ideal: > > - we have Morphic, and itâs upcoming replace, Brick (but Brick is not in the image, so the pain there is less) > - we have Spec to support our tooling. > - we have Glamour to supportâ¦ well, our tooling too. > - we have now Brick, who (AFAIS) is an extension of Morphic, and a replacement the Morphic Widgets and also Glamour. > GTTools team has explicitly declared Brick will replace Glamour (but API will remain largely compatible, they say). > GTTools team has also stated they would use Bloc is they could/when they can. > - We have the old Text Editor > - We have Rubric, which was stated to be âold stuffâ and deprecated > - We have also the new TxModel which intends to replace both, Text Editor and Rubricâ¦ but it cannot be used right now (or better: It cannot replace none of the previous yet) > > Soâ¦ which one to use? > We, the board, have something clear and some other not so clear yet, for example: > > - we would like to replace Morphic with Bloc, but this is a lot of work and will take a lot of time so in the mean time we also clean old Morphic as much as we can (and we encourage people to do it) > - Spec needs work too > - Glamour will be replaced by Brick, so do not use it > - TxModel will replace all the previous, but it needs a lor of work. In the mean time, we suggest to use and improve Rubric, and of course, we would like to have more people contributing to TxModel. > > So wellâ¦ yes this is a mess. Yes we are aware. No we donât know when things will improve, but *they will*. > In the mean time as a Pharo user, I would like to know which one should I use for my projectsâ¦ this is my recommendation: > > - Do not use âdirectâ Morphic unless doing graphics > - Use TxModel and if you cannot, Rubric > - Use Brick or Spec, not Glamour (because Brick will replace it soon) > > And of course, I would help with fixes and reports on everything :) > > > cheers, > Esteban > > > > >> On 24 Mar 2015, at 12:37, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Nicolai, >> >> I am surprised by your conclusion that the current Brick implementation disqualifies it from being part of the Core :) >> >> Let's recap. >> >> Brick was created to support GT. We wanted GT in the image, hence Brick is in the image as part of Glamour. In the meantime, Brick has grown and it's now an almost standalone framework, but it is not yet advisable to use it apps because it will likely change more. >> >> As Alex says, we do not want to have two competing new projects running in parallel (Brick and Bloc) and fragmenting the effort even more. That is why, for Pharo 5 we want to invest in Bloc. The interesting thing is that while Bloc starts from scratch, Brick already works and has quite some high level widgets and logic built in. Brick is already going in the same direction expected by Bloc, so we will likely have the opportunity of moving Brick on top of Bloc (Alex already did an experiment in this direction). >> >> Concretely, on March 31 and April 1 (no joke :)), we have a session in Bern where Alain Plantec will join us to look into how to approach this problem concretely. >> >> All in all, you should see Brick as a pragmatic intermediary step towards removing Morph. I agree that it can be better (what cannot be), but I disagree we should discard GT because of it. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de <mailto:nicolaihess@web.de>> wrote: >> >> >> 2015-03-23 20:54 GMT+01:00 Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com <mailto:alex.syrel@gmail.com>>: >> Hi, >> >> Sorry if my reply will be too long, but I tried to summarise our experience with Morphic/Brick and give some useful feedback or even provide ideas. Who wants will read :) >> >> Hi, >> thank you, this is a really great source of information, and it would be heplful >> to have this kind of write up somewhere else (not in the mailinglist). >> But I did not question why we may need brick or why it is done. >> My question was, what are the feature plans, is it just an experiment that >> can vanish, so it is better to not use it for the core tools. Or is it meant to be >> THE new framework we should gain our focus on. >> >> >> Brick is not a thin layer anymore. >> It depends on what you mean under 'a thin layer' ;) Anyway, Brick was born out of need. Spotter is completely built using Brick and Rubric. >> >> This is something I don't understand. As we integrated GT-Tools into the image, Rubric >> slipped in as it is need by GT. I asked what is the background, what are the feature plans >> and complained about the undocumented core classes, that makes it difficult to see >> what changed compared to the old text classes. Alain said he doesn't plan to do further >> work on Rubric. >> So, WHY don't we replace and migrate the existing classes now and clean it up. It takes so >> much resources to maintain both. Every theme change, every change on shortcuts/menus/keymapping, the athens drawing, all has to be double checked - It is so exhausting. >> >> >> No morphs are used at all (except Rubric of course). >> >> Well, all Bricks ARE morphs, they share the same state and api. >> >> All Bricks in Spotter in the end are subclasses of GLMBrick, which uses from original Morph only Canvas (without drawing) and MorphicEvents. >> >> If so, the clean/better way would be to extract those part into a "ProtoMorph" or a "PlainMorph". >> and subclass from that once for Brick and again for Morphs. >> Now we have Bricks, that are looking like a Morph, but aren't used to be one, and probable doesn't even work if they are used as Morphs. >> (Sure this is true for other Morphsubclasses as well, but that does not means it doesn't hurt if we do more of this). >> >> Everything else was rewritten from scratch. During some period of time Brick was able to render itself on Athens canvas, but we dropped it because of Font issues in athens. >> There are even more issues for Athens, and they don't vanish magically. There are some issues >> on fogbugz just waiting for some feedback, preferable from people intending to use Athens. >> >> Spotter is not the only tool written using Brick, GLMPager - a pane pager in GT-Inspector, GT-Playground and GT-Debugger is also completely done using Brick. Almost all tab labels and tab selector in GT tools are Bricks. >> >> >> ... >> >> >> We really would like to move all tools to Bloc as soon as possible, but we just need something right now that works and can be used in current version. >> >> But wyh not waiting on Bloc or (even better) help finishing Bloc. Why it is needed to push >> this into the release. >> >> I think we will never (but who knows) announce Brick as separate project. In our minds it is just useful helper library. >> >> For me, this just disqualifies Brick from being used in the core image. >> >> >> I see that many things in the GToolkit are better than the old one (theming/layouting/delegate behavior in sub(classes/bricks). Great, it makes fun to work with it,extending the inspector or Spotter search. >> >> But I don't understand why this is pushed that way and on top of the old system/classes instead of cleaning that up. >> >> >> nicolai >> >> >> Thanks for reading :) >> >> Cheers, >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" > >

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Which one to use? [WAS: Re: GLMBrick whats next?]

by Tudor Girba

Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-03-24 15:16 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> On 24 Mar 2015, at 14:29, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is a big diffirence between Morphic and the other. Morphic is a >> full solution and mature one as well. The others , with the exception of >> Bloc , try to wrap things up or offering better solution to some areas. >> >> >> The one thing I don't understand is why improving Morphic or even >> redesigning it is not even on the table. Looks to me like the least painful >> scenario. Unless thats the intention of Bloc to be the next generation of >> Morphic. In that case I am all for Bloc. >> >> >> if you read my mail, you will notice that I said BOTH are on the table >> (and we are actually moving oon both): >> - Bloc is the redesign >> - In the mean time we WORK and ENCOURAGE others to work on improve it. >> >> but Morphic it self has several fundamental flaws that cannot be fixed >> and thatâs why in the long, very long way, needs to be replaced. >> > > One of the problem is that the Morphic replacement will probably be less > than Morphic was (or was intended to be) :( > > You'll probably tell me that for the kind of work we're doing in UI with > Pharo, we don't need the power of Morphic and I'd agree with you. > > Still, I will miss the demise of Morphic. > I think I do not understand this point. Why do you say that the future solution will be less than Morphic? Doru > > Thierry > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Which one to use? [WAS: Re: GLMBrick whats next?]

by Alain Plantec

Hello Thierry, > Le 24 mars 2015 Ã 15:24, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > One of the problem is that the Morphic replacement will probably be less than Morphic was (or was intended to be) :( why do you think so ? Cheers Alain > > You'll probably tell me that for the kind of work we're doing in UI with Pharo, we don't need the power of Morphic and I'd agree with you. > > Still, I will miss the demise of Morphic. > > Thierry

March 24, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slots and MethodWrappers

by Johan Fabry

I would say that they are different although related. Slots are for the interception of accessing instance variables (for read and write), and method wrappers for the interception of accessing methods (for execution). > On Mar 24, 2015, at 09:02, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > I wondered how these two things are related. > > Will slots be giving MWs facilities out of the box? > > When should I use both? > > Phil > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

March 24, 2015