- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Dale Henrichs

Stef, I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty. On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack.... Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ... For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ... One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2... Dale On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > we need to think about package: > > right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...). > We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement > instead. > RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence. > > Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because: > - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching. > - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages > - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages > so this means that configuration would have to be adapted. > > - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC. > and to have tags to only represent categories. > > Now my time is short so I will > - probably not implement tags > - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange > code. > - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place > like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo > - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to > associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames > and change the packages accordingly). > - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching. > > So if you have suggestion please talk now. > > > Stef

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > I have another problem is: > imagine we do not match category to package so this means that users will have to add explicitly their categories > to the package > > So I load Foo > > I get the contents of > Foo and Foo-B categories into RPackage Foo. > > I save Foo and it save the classes in Foo and Foo-B (categories are not considered just rpackage contents) > > Now > I add a category Foo-C (because the browser let me do it) > -> may be system should ask me: do you want to add to the Foo RPackage? > -> may be I should do it explicitly > > Better is that we have a browser only showing RPackages > > Then what happen if I add a new class Zork in Foo-C > > The class category will be Foo-C and again does the system has to check in which package it should put the class? > How do I map Zork class? > -> explicitly? > -> What happens if I do it via a browser only showing classes and categories? > > > So the mapping Category to package is not that bad else we will have to check *****ALL***** the time > if a class should be put in a package or not and compare category with package names. > And we will have all the crap of matching with sub subc.... most specific categories.... > > So I would like to community to react to this mail because this is important and people will get frustrated after. > > I think that a one to one mapping to category is a good idea. > + having a browser just showing packages would be good. > > Yeap, I think that giving tool support is the key here. > I don't like the implicit approach because it'll lead to miss-understandings and eventually RPackage can be used in several ways other than One-to-One with categories. > > So, something I'd like to ask, since I'm not entirely aware of the subject: Which are the concepts behind a Package and a Category? should they be the same or not? why? RPackage does not rely on any conventions: everything is explicit: you add you methods/class to the package. Now my point is how to make the transition smooth. Stef

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

The problem is how do we handle packages when people do not use nautilus Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 19 March 2011 15:53, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 19 March 2011 08:11, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >>>> category name, or just a technical limitation? >>> >>> RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of classes and methods. >>> >>> Now the problem is simply the following: >>> >>> you have a MC package FOO >>> it contains FOO-Cat1 >>> >>> you load it: ok the loader could create >>> RPAckage Foo >>> and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it >>> >>> Now you create a new category >>> FOO-z what should I do >>> add it to FOO >>> create a package Foo-z >>> >>> We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on categories now we could have tags >>> but tags should orthogonal to packages. >>> >> No. The process should be different: >> >> You marking an active package (in same way as currently we having an >> active changeset). >> Then anything you do (any classes or methods you creating) is going >> straightly to that package. >> >> Now, what to do if you hacking around or do refactoring over multiple >> classes in multiple packages: >> - you can say that for the time of your hacking session a methods you >> changing/adding should belong to same packages >> as their classes (instead of adding methods to single active package >> as extensions). >> This should be default behavior. >> > > Or, since you doing new environment-tied browser, > you can say to single browser instance: please stick with this > package, and for another instance - stick with another. > Then anything you do in browser goes to these package(s). > >>> >>>> I'd prefer to have a package which can allow an arbitrary category >>>> names in future. It may be that tools like browser are not prepared >>>> for that.. >>>> but not an internal information of package. To my thinking , classes >>>> which belong to package could have any category names.. >>>> Names should not mean anything.. it is just for humans. >>>> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Source in a file format ...

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

send an example so ythat we see exactly what you asked for. On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:19 PM, James Ladd wrote: > > The Pharo File out format is currently supported by Redline Smalltalk. > However, editing a class in a file in "chunk" format is not that pleasant. > > What would you suggest as a format for source code that is in a file? > > Avi Bryant of DabbleDB/Twitter fame suggested having a + (class) or - (instance) before a method pattern > and just ending the method with a period. What do you think ? for example: > > - yourself > ^ self. > > > Rgs, James.

March 19, 2011

[Pharo-project] Source in a file format ...

by James Ladd

The Pharo File out format is currently supported by Redline Smalltalk. However, editing a class in a file in "chunk" format is not that pleasant. What would you suggest as a format for source code that is in a file? Avi Bryant of DabbleDB/Twitter fame suggested having a + (class) or - (instance) before a method pattern and just ending the method with a period. What do you think ? for example: - yourself ^ self. Rgs, James.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Guillermo Polito

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > I have another problem is: > imagine we do not match category to package so this means that users > will have to add explicitly their categories > to the package > > So I load Foo > > I get the contents of > Foo and Foo-B categories into RPackage Foo. > > I save Foo and it save the classes in Foo and Foo-B (categories are > not considered just rpackage contents) > > Now > I add a category Foo-C (because the browser let me do it) > -> may be system should ask me: do you want to add to the > Foo RPackage? > -> may be I should do it explicitly > > Better is that we have a browser only showing RPackages > > Then what happen if I add a new class Zork in Foo-C > > The class category will be Foo-C and again does the system has to check in > which package it should put the class? > How do I map Zork class? > -> explicitly? > -> What happens if I do it via a browser only showing classes and > categories? > > > So the mapping Category to package is not that bad else we will have to > check *****ALL***** the time > if a class should be put in a package or not and compare category with > package names. > And we will have all the crap of matching with sub subc.... most specific > categories.... > > So I would like to community to react to this mail because this is > important and people will get frustrated after. > > I think that a one to one mapping to category is a good idea. > + having a browser just showing packages would be good. > Yeap, I think that giving tool support is the key here. I don't like the implicit approach because it'll lead to miss-understandings and eventually RPackage can be used in several ways other than One-to-One with categories. So, something I'd like to ask, since I'm not entirely aware of the subject: Which are the concepts behind a Package and a Category? should they be the same or not? why? Guille > > Then we can after have a browser that show categories as tags and sort the > classes accordingly. > > So people please thing a bit because I want to make progress and losing my > time is boring. > > > Stef >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Igor Stasenko

On 19 March 2011 15:53, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 March 2011 08:11, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >>> category name, or just a technical limitation? >> >> RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of classes and methods. >> >> Now the problem is simply the following: >> >> Â Â Â Â you have a MC package FOO >> Â Â Â Â it contains FOO-Cat1 >> >> Â Â Â Â you load it: ok the loader could create >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RPAckage Foo >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it >> >> Â Â Â Â Now you create a new category >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â FOO-z what should I do >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â add it to FOO >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â create a package Foo-z >> >> We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on categories now we could have tags >> but tags should orthogonal to packages. >> > No. The process should be different: > > You marking an active package (in same way as currently we having an > active changeset). > Then anything you do (any classes or methods you creating) is going > straightly to that package. > > Now, what to do if you hacking around or do refactoring over multiple > classes in multiple packages: > Â - you can say that for the time of your hacking session a methods you > changing/adding should belong to same packages > as their classes (instead of adding methods to single active package > as extensions). > This should be default behavior. > Or, since you doing new environment-tied browser, you can say to single browser instance: please stick with this package, and for another instance - stick with another. Then anything you do in browser goes to these package(s). >> >>> I'd prefer to have a package which can allow an arbitrary category >>> names in future. It may be that tools like browser are not prepared >>> for that.. >>> but not an internal information of package. To my thinking , classes >>> which belong to package could have any category names.. >>> Names should not mean anything.. it is just for humans. >>> > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] need your attention: Package

by Igor Stasenko

On 19 March 2011 08:11, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> >> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >> category name, or just a technical limitation? > > RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of classes and methods. > > Now the problem is simply the following: > > Â Â Â Â you have a MC package FOO > Â Â Â Â it contains FOO-Cat1 > > Â Â Â Â you load it: ok the loader could create > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â RPAckage Foo > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it > > Â Â Â Â Now you create a new category > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â FOO-z what should I do > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â add it to FOO > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â create a package Foo-z > > We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on categories now we could have tags > but tags should orthogonal to packages. > No. The process should be different: You marking an active package (in same way as currently we having an active changeset). Then anything you do (any classes or methods you creating) is going straightly to that package. Now, what to do if you hacking around or do refactoring over multiple classes in multiple packages: - you can say that for the time of your hacking session a methods you changing/adding should belong to same packages as their classes (instead of adding methods to single active package as extensions). This should be default behavior. > >> I'd prefer to have a package which can allow an arbitrary category >> names in future. It may be that tools like browser are not prepared >> for that.. >> but not an internal information of package. To my thinking , classes >> which belong to package could have any category names.. >> Names should not mean anything.. it is just for humans. >> -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] New section in Pharo website for business Re: ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

mariano can you do it? Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > I think Esteban is right. We should create a page/section in pharo-project that shows all the available tools for doing a real, business app. So, we could say something like: > > Web development: > > - seaside > - aidaWeb > - Iliad > > Persistence > - ... > > - HTTP and networking > ... > > Improving development time > - developer tools for pharo > > - Control version system > > - Package management system > > - Web hosting > > - security > > Those are some of the things people usually look when starting a project > > cheers > > Mariano > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > We are starting to have a lot of new cool tools to make really enterprise projects. > Yes, this needs to be in the book (also with others now absent, like "riak", etc.)... I know not many people maintain it now, which is sad :( > > ALSO... i think is hard to notice the existence of all that tools, if you are not used to go to book and look... > What about adding a link: > > "Are you going to start a new project? look at the available *tools>http://book.pharo-project.org/book/PharoTools*!" > > ... somewhere with visibility at pharo-project? > > Cheers, > Esteban > > El 19/03/2011, a las 9:35a.m., Mariano Martinez Peck escribiÃ³: > >> People should update >> >> http://book.pharo-project.org/book/PharoTools/ >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:31 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> Thanks >> Keep us aware of your progress. >> May be you want to sync with the Ocean people since they are redesigning the network library. >> >> Stef >> >> On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Vijay Mathew wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I have started working on ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo. >> > (ZeroMQ website: http://www.zeromq.org/) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -- Vijay >> > >> >> >> > >

March 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Yes this is a good idea. Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > Hi, > We are starting to have a lot of new cool tools to make really enterprise projects. > Yes, this needs to be in the book (also with others now absent, like "riak", etc.)... I know not many people maintain it now, which is sad :( > > ALSO... i think is hard to notice the existence of all that tools, if you are not used to go to book and look... > What about adding a link: > > "Are you going to start a new project? look at the available *tools>http://book.pharo-project.org/book/PharoTools*!" > > ... somewhere with visibility at pharo-project? > > Cheers, > Esteban > > El 19/03/2011, a las 9:35a.m., Mariano Martinez Peck escribiÃ³: > >> People should update >> >> http://book.pharo-project.org/book/PharoTools/ >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:31 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> Thanks >> Keep us aware of your progress. >> May be you want to sync with the Ocean people since they are redesigning the network library. >> >> Stef >> >> On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Vijay Mathew wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I have started working on ZeroMQ bindings for Pharo. >> > (ZeroMQ website: http://www.zeromq.org/) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -- Vijay >> > >> >> >> >

March 19, 2011