- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] does anybody has a copy of HTTPClient of colin Curtin?

by Alain Fischer

There is a copy here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070222111811rn_1/alpineguy.com/httpclient/ On 30 aoÃ»t 10, at 11:07, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > hi guys > > Colin curtin mentioned to mike that he would like to donate his > HTTPClient to squeak and pharo > > http://map.squeak.org/package/8644a5ff-923c-438f-b5b0-a281de346040 > > > <Re: Squeak HTTPClient.eml> > > Stef_______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi Andreas, Thank you for clarifying your position and for pointing out the lack of a proper license for WebClient code. I and other people in the Pharo community made a mistake and we're sorry. We will be more careful in the future. But to our defense, as others pointed out, you're communications gave the impression that this was true open source, compatible with the standard Squeak one in spirit. Futhermore, and this to your credit as well, you yourself wrote the WebClient-Pharo package, giving the impression that you valued that port. It also proves that you did the actual effort. Thanks you! And indeed, you did incorporate some changes, so the intention was certainly there. Now, I would not say that we already actually forked the code. We just tried to port it. The process of following your progress proved difficult (you probably made a diff between your and our latest versions), precisely because of some of these little things like #asString, #utf8Encoding, #and:and:and:and:, but also some deeper ones like #pathForFile that kept coming back. You have every right to refuse to follow the Pharo Smalltalk spirit or style. I respect that, and the Pharo community as a whole should too. But your refusal to do so and the lack of a license give us no alternative than to look for other solutions. I wasn't there when the discussion that let to the birth of Pharo took place. But it is clear that the Smalltalk community is too small to not work together. The Smalltalk-80 inheritance and the enormeous contributions of the Squeak community over the years should be respected by all. At the same time you cannot ignore the positive effect that Pharo had since then. For me and many others, Pharo definitively has its place, along many other viable Smalltalk implementations. Regards, Sven On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] this style looks cool

by ja＠anymorphic.com

StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@...> writes: > did you sign the license agreement? For the License, I send a fax to you, now. I pushed the changes used and created by Anymorphic into Pharo-Inbox under the Name "Polymorph-Themes-Pro".

Aug. 30, 2010

[Pharo-project] does anybody has a copy of HTTPClient of colin Curtin?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

hi guys Colin curtin mentioned to mike that he would like to donate his HTTPClient to squeak and pharo http://map.squeak.org/package/8644a5ff-923c-438f-b5b0-a281de346040 Stef

Aug. 30, 2010

[Pharo-project] [update 1.2] #12119

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

12119 ----- - Issue 2880: remove WebClient from pharo. Thanks Andreas Raab. Andreas is right no code without license in Pharo. Good catch. Stef

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

<ESUG> A little advertisement: Cincom pushed the idea to have a lawyer at ESUG to explain such kind of points, there will be a panel with Julian Fitzel, Bert Freudenberg so we will all learn. Prepare your questions. </ESUG> On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it). > Can you please clarify the license situation of those projects? > > Best regards, > Johan > > > On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >> >> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote: > I agree with Andreas that the process for including packages in Pharo > is not transparent (at least not me). read the open and transparent discussions that happened over the past months in this mailing-list: check for webClient in the title :) For pharo: this is really simple - we discuss in the mailing-list - reach a consensus - act. Tell me once you will have read the mails if this is not what we did and how we could improve them. I would like to have the same process than python but we are too small for that right now. > Dont know the process > for Squeak either - but at least we all should take care to keep the > whole platform and forks open. Maybe the license should be a > required field in Squeaksource for any new project. > > Havent followed the whole thread - but I still wonder what the reason > for Andreas is to not release Webclient as MIT? Especially since I think > it could be a nice addition to the standard images (Squeak, Pharo or > whatever) ... > > Bye > T. > > > -- > GMX DSL SOMMER-SPECIAL: Surf & Phone Flat 16.000 fÃ¼r nur 19,99 Â¿/mtl.!* > http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by Johan Brichau

Hi Andreas, I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it). Can you please clarify the license situation of those projects? Best regards, Johan On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is.

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Adrian Same for squeakSSL. :) Stef On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:03 AM, adi(a)netstyle.ch wrote: > I fully agree with Stef. > > I don't remember why I assumed the license was MIT, maybe because on > Andreas' blog it says: "we now have what I think is a pretty decent HTTP > server and client implementation for Squeak 4.1". Isn't the missing > license an issue for Squeak? Anyway, obviously its a no-go not only for > Pharo but also for companies (like us at Cmsbox, who considered using > WebClient in the future). > > Cheers, > Adrian > > Zitat von StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > >> Hi andreas >> >> 1- We talked a lot about Webclient used in the Pharo mailing-list and we were stupid to think that you read it. Luckily you did it at last. >> 2- I'm also surprised that nobody checked the license (me the first). Shit happens even with the best attitude. We are paying attention to contributor and >> we learned something today. >> 3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. Apparently not >> so this is good. >> 4- We want to have a good web library in Pharo, so this will not webclient. I do not believe that this is good to build any >> software on libraries that have an unclear license. At least I would not do it just to avoid to get trap in it. >> 5- We will remove (by today) WebClient from Pharo. >> 6- Pharoers will have to decide and probably to build an open one under MIT. >> 6- Some people do not like that they cannot improve the code they see and use daily. >> 7- This is your right to criticize the code quality and design of Pharo, there is no problem with that. We have another point of view >> after the years we spent. Now they may be some little glitches and if you have precise feedback we are open to hear them. >> We are working working working and ... working on it and we are improving everyday -- may be too slowly. >> >> Stef >> >> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >>> >>> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. >>> >>> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). >>> >>> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >>> ... etc ... >>> >>> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >>> >>> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. >>> >>> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. >>> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. >> >>> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. >>> >>> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >>> >>> Summary: >>> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) >>> >>> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >>> >>> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Andreas, >>>> >>>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>>> >>>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>>> >>>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>>> >>>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>>> >>>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>>> >>>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>>> From: Andreas Raab<andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> >>>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<sven(a)beta9.be> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sven, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>>> >>>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>>> much attention. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>>> simply incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberg… >>>>>> >>>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>>> >>>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>>>> >>>>>> ================================================ >>>>>> >>>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>>>> Failures: >>>>>> >>>>>> Errors: >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>>> >>>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Aug. 30, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final

by laurent laffont

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Hi pharoers > > What do you think? > I think that we should not have any software parts whose license is not set > clearly in Pharo. > So I will remove WebClient from Pharo. > It can still be maintained as an external package and it seems it's Andreas intent. Anyway, WebClient must have a licence. No licence means nobody can use it (even Squeak). So I would like to know the licence before any decision. PS: I don't understand the '(code) forks are evil' statement, I think it encourages "project forks" and closes contribution. This currently happens it seems. Reminds me the squeak-vm on github thread ..... Laurent I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an > open-source one. > Stef > > > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > > > Hi Sven, > > > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is > nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit > surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo > 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions > on the Pharo list. > > > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in > Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the > project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note > along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with > that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list > and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the > following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > > ... etc ... > > > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to > state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the > repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, > the following repositories: > > > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as > clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that > your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is > LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even > tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I > don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced > with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence > I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever > mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more > forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a > license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion > (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due > diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. > How very ironic indeed. > > > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external > package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's > exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone > perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient > comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time > being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, > then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket > implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I > haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and > the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with > "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these > issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse > only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a > reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside > of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have > been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that > provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without > which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > > > Summary: > > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due > diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular > shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the > beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor > has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael > got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you > will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive > from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package > with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, > including Pharo. > > > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long > as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an > updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to > updating it to the latest package versions. > > > > Cheers, > > - Andreas > > > > On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > >> Andreas, > >> > >> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: > >> > >> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 > >> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe > >> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm > >> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 > >> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 > >> > >> merged in pharo-core 1.2 > >> > >> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. > >> > >> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and > willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, > help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, > whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we > basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing > changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. > >> > >> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint > is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). > I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should > make it clear what your standpoint is. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sven > >> > >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> > >>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> - Andreas > >>> > >>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final > >>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 > >>> From: Andreas Raab<andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> > >>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<sven(a)beta9.be> > >>> > >>> Hi Sven, > >>> > >>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird > >>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get > routinely > >>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just > >>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) > >>> > >>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been > >>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying > >>> much attention. > >>> > >>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at > >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code > >>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 > license." > >>> > >>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change > the > >>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other > >>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that > >>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is > >>> simply incorrect. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> - Andreas > >>> > >>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > >>>> Hi Andreas, > >>>> > >>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on > Pharo 1.1: > >>>> > >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to > project A Day At The Beach: > >>>> > http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberg… > >>>> > >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== > >>>> > >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 > >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe > >>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am > >>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d > >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 > >>>> > >>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different > semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with > a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect > >>>> > >>>> ================================================ > >>>> > >>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 > unexpected passes > >>>> Failures: > >>>> > >>>> Errors: > >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles > >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 > >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError > >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets > >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming > >>>> > >>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. > >>>> > >>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can > help. > >>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. > >>>> > >>>> Sven > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Aug. 30, 2010