- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] [ANN] some cleans

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I remove isUniClass: and clean the inspector following gary's clean. plus some leftOver related to uniclass. Stef

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] On Icons

by Matthew Fulmer

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:54:08AM +0200, Lukas Renggli wrote: > On 9/23/08, Stï¿½phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > Lukas another example: > > Here I was browsing some methods and suddenly there is cross: I said oops > > this method is an extension. > > And I did not have to click on *packageinfo-base because in the flow of my > > reading I was not looking > > for extensions per se. > > I agree, that's nice to see. However now the plus hides information > that is totally orthogonal to package extensions (inheritance). Perhaps OB could use composable icons, like MS Windows does with shortcuts: A little arrow icon representing "shortcut" superimposed on a big icon representing "content type" Many IDE's use an icon for every method or class. I think I don't like that, though. -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [Seaside-dev] preliminary Seaside 2.9 alpha universe

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> An installer script or an mcm is not an option because that would > always load one fixed configuration. But this is not what you want when you do not use a Universe? >> but this is not what we want when we do not use a universe. > > To be able to properly load Seaside a system that can handle > dependencies is a requirement. so I'm confused I thought that exactly mcm allow to specify exact version. > To our knowledge, Universe is the only > system in Squeak/Pharo that can handle this task. > > If you do not like Universes you can always load the Monticello > packages manually following this graph: > <http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/dropbox/seaside-2.9/seaside.png>. Good > luck ;-) But Universe do not have the granularity for following all the small changes. I thought that for the people developing seaside daily you wanted either the latest or been able to go back to exactly one version of a set of components and there the exact version number is a must I do not see the numbering in dependency in Universe. For me Universe is good when a complex program is ok for public consumption not incremental daily changes. So tell me because I do not understand. I also thought that Mcm was offering a fixed versions and could be used a fixed configmap We could extend it to support **load latest for this component** Stef

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [Seaside-dev] preliminary Seaside 2.9 alpha universe

by Lukas Renggli

> but this is not what we want when we do not use a universe. To be able to properly load Seaside a system that can handle dependencies is a requirement. To our knowledge, Universe is the only system in Squeak/Pharo that can handle this task. If you do not like Universes you can always load the Monticello packages manually following this graph: <http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/dropbox/seaside-2.9/seaside.png>. Good luck ;-) Cheers, Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [Seaside-dev] preliminary Seaside 2.9 alpha universe

by Norbert Hartl

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 15:51 +0200, Lukas Renggli wrote: > On 9/25/08, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > why can we have an installer script or mcm ? > > We should be able to have one click install too. > > It will eventually become simpler. > > An installer script or an mcm is not an option because that would > always load one fixed configuration. Only with Universe we have the > possibility to load the set of packages the developer needs, and pull > in a minimal set of required dependencies automatically. > What will you do with current channels (beta,...) with seaside. Are you preparing an universe for each. The most important thing that is lacking in Universe is to assign a package version to a certain channel. This leads to something I've seen some times: A package the is called Seaside-beta-anything which is broken as soon as this beta becomes stable. For me universes capture the basic idea of an package distribution tree but it lacks essential stuff. Without that I don't know if it is worth it. Having a maintained universe only for seaside is a good thing. But you have to include KomHttpServer as well which will also be in the "official" universe. And AFAIK you can't merge universes, right? We could convert your universe into a Monticello configuration. It may sound stupid as first but I don't think it is hard to do and we wouldn't need to have universes and XML parser in the image. my 2 cents, Norbert

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Removing class category

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

But the problem that we face is that we have dependency that could be already factored out. I will start to remove etoy and we will see Stef On Sep 25, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On 25.09.2008, at 15:40, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I just created a package MorphicBalloon that contains the 3 classes >> defined in Morphic-Balloon. >> Here is the comment: >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> This package contains the 3 classes that define Balloon >> (BalloonCanvas, BalloonRectangleMorph, MatrixTranformMorph). >> These three classes, are only referenced by classes defined in the >> class category Morphic-Support. >> I am not sure whether this is a good change, but it is a first step >> to remove class category >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> This is an example that should raise the question about where we >> want to go. >> I feel that having class category as sub-monticellopackage is a >> bad thing. >> We should get rid of class category. >> > > I don't know if that is a good idea... Morphic is such a blob of > unmaintainability, we should not add more confusion by > packaging it into many tiny packages. > > I would first clean up. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- denker(a)iam.unibe.ch > http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Removing class category

by Marcus Denker

On 25.09.2008, at 15:40, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi! > > I just created a package MorphicBalloon that contains the 3 classes > defined in Morphic-Balloon. > Here is the comment: > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > This package contains the 3 classes that define Balloon > (BalloonCanvas, BalloonRectangleMorph, MatrixTranformMorph). > These three classes, are only referenced by classes defined in the > class category Morphic-Support. > I am not sure whether this is a good change, but it is a first step > to remove class category > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > This is an example that should raise the question about where we > want to go. > I feel that having class category as sub-monticellopackage is a bad > thing. > We should get rid of class category. > I don't know if that is a good idea... Morphic is such a blob of unmaintainability, we should not add more confusion by packaging it into many tiny packages. I would first clean up. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- denker(a)iam.unibe.ch http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [Seaside-dev] preliminary Seaside 2.9 alpha universe

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: > On 9/25/08, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> why can we have an installer script or mcm ? >> We should be able to have one click install too. > > It will eventually become simpler. > > An installer script or an mcm is not an option because that would > always load one fixed configuration. but this is not what we want when we do not use a universe. > Only with Universe we have the > possibility to load the set of packages the developer needs, and pull > in a minimal set of required dependencies automatically. > > Cheers, > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Sept. 25, 2008

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [Seaside-dev] preliminary Seaside 2.9 alpha universe

by Lukas Renggli

On 9/25/08, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > why can we have an installer script or mcm ? > We should be able to have one click install too. It will eventually become simpler. An installer script or an mcm is not an option because that would always load one fixed configuration. Only with Universe we have the possibility to load the set of packages the developer needs, and pull in a minimal set of required dependencies automatically. Cheers, Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Sept. 25, 2008

[Pharo-project] Removing class category

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi! I just created a package MorphicBalloon that contains the 3 classes defined in Morphic-Balloon. Here is the comment: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This package contains the 3 classes that define Balloon (BalloonCanvas, BalloonRectangleMorph, MatrixTranformMorph). These three classes, are only referenced by classes defined in the class category Morphic-Support. I am not sure whether this is a good change, but it is a first step to remove class category -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This is an example that should raise the question about where we want to go. I feel that having class category as sub-monticellopackage is a bad thing. We should get rid of class category. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Sept. 25, 2008