- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)
by Chris Muller Dec. 14, 2012

Dec. 14, 2012

>> Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring >> work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object >> technology, encapsulation. > > The main problem with FileDirectory that there's no API. > I can hardly call a single class as API... > as to me, it is clear that file system domain is a bit more complex > and in order to reflect it properly in a language you will need more > that a single role (FileDirectory). FileDirectory is actually made up of 10 classes providing a rich but utilitarian API for traversal, navigation, stream creation, copying and renaming, filename parsing utilities. Platform-specific implementations all share the same API, including one for remote FTP access. For you to say "no API" is silly. > So, i really doubt that you end up with 'little disruption to API'. It > will be substantial. > > To me, design comes first. ALWAYS. > All of the rest is secondary. Design should be a means to some end, not an end in itself. You can design for 20 years but if real-world results are never harvested then it was only ever just playing around with a cool toy. My goal is to get as far along my software journey as my limited lifespan will allow.. > FileSystem establishing a clear > separation between conceptual model > ... snip ... > won't require serious changes and will serve you much much longer > without need to change anything in userland code. (Take a Collection > protocols for example). .. and so when I become faced with having to make "serious changes" in my "userland code," (e.g., a complex ODBMS system) just to hold position along my journey; naturally I'm resistant. You can try to justify it with design theory but, at the end of the day, the two frameworks do basically the same thing, converting to it is mostly pure cost. > Also, once you have such set of rules, it is much easier for people to > maintain implementation code, > as well as adding extra functionality if needed. > > Clearly, VM interfaces (such as primitives) should be not exposed to > ... Igor, a very good explanation for our individual views here is that your journey is building a great new Smalltalk, mine is something else. Cheers, Chris

3 2

[Pharo-project] How to load Phoseydon and Neptuno?
by Torsten Bergmann Dec. 14, 2012

Dec. 14, 2012

Are there plans for SqueakDBX regarding porting it to Pharo 2.0 or moving it from FFI to NativeBoost?

2 1

[Pharo-project] another kid born: NBExternalEnumerationType
by Ciprian Teodorov Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

Hi guys, today I have commited to the NativeBoost repository a new core class, the NBExternalEnumerationType, which reifies the enum declarations in C and offers a nice interface (especially in terms of debug/inspect). To use it just subclass the NBExternalEnumeration and add an #enumDeclmethod to the class side such as: NBExternalEnumeration subclass: #NBTestEnumeration instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: '' poolDictionaries: '' category: 'NativeBoost-Tests' NBTestEnumeration class>>enumDecl ^ {(#AAA -> 1). (#BBB -> 2). (#CCC -> 3). (#DDD -> 2400)} asDictionary DO NOT FORGET to call the #initialize method on your class. The rest is automatically done ;) You can use your new enum in two ways: - add it to a client class poolDictionaries list (see #NBExternalEnumTests for an example), and then just write CCC in your code -- CCC here is an item of your enum - or you can send the name of an item to your class --- NBTestEnumeration DDD The NBExternalEnumeration implements (instance and class) some more API methods like: - #itemAt: retrieves the item having a specific value --- NBTestEnumeration itemAt: 2 - #includes: checks the existence of a specific item in the enum --- NBTestEnumeration includes: #AAA Having this already gives us a nice interface to working with enums. Now I plan to improve a little bit on performance and usage scenarios: - the possibility to accept smalltalk integers as valid input/output for functions(or callbacks) that use enums as arguments/return. - support the different representation types for the enum values (int/uint) So that will be for now. Feel free to try it out and send me any comments and/or improvement ideas, It will be my pleasure to improve it. Cheers, -- Dr. Ciprian TEODOROV IngÃ©nieur DÃ©veloppement CAO tÃ©l : 06 08 54 73 48 mail : ciprian.teodorov(a)gmail.com www.teodorov.ro

3 8

[Pharo-project] Zinc-Resource-Meta-[Core|Tests]
by Sven Van Caekenberghe Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

Just a quick note: the first version of Zinc-Resource-Meta-[Core|Tests] containing ZnUrl and ZnMimeType independent of / separate from / as a dependency for Zinc-HTTP is now available. ConfigurationOfZincHTTPComponents version 2.0 reflects this change (#stable for Pharo 2.x). -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill

3 5

[Pharo-project] NativeBoost and Pharo Kernel
by Pavel Krivanek Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

Hi, I would like to ask: should NativeBoost be part of the Pharo Kernel? Currently there are some minor issues like that AsmJit-Extension package takes ownership of Integer>>#&, False>>#asBit and so on. Will NativeBoost be more closely integrated with the kernel in the near future? BTW, we need to integrate http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7062 before any update that will move methods between packages. Cheers, -- Pavel

5 7

[Pharo-project] I love to see the commit log on OPAL
by StÃ©phane Ducasse Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

continue this is cool :)

1 0

[Pharo-project] [update 2.0] #20435
by Marcus Denker Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

20435 ----- Issue 7120: Make Print It deal better with errors in printString http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7120 Issue 7099: Integration of NewList in 2.0 (again) http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7099 Issue 7024: unify #compile:classified:withStamp:notifying:logSource: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7024 Diff information: http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Traits-MarcusDenker.447.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Text-MarcusDenker.46.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/NewList-MarcusDenker.11.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Morphic-MarcusDenker.1306.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Kernel-MarcusDenker.1267.diff

1 0

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)
by Igor Stasenko Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

a little followup.. Please, do not even try to say that FileDirectory and FileSystem is interchangeable :) Colin laid a foundation in a place where was no foundation at all. Yes, in Pharo we did some changes in order to 'make it work', polishing some rough corners, as well as writing tests and documenting the code. Without laying foundation, nobody starts to build houses.. (well, some do.. but they do not stay long). We even teach kids about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

1 0

[Pharo-project] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)
by Igor Stasenko Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

On 13 December 2012 03:59, Chris Muller <asqueaker(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by >>> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is >>> feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo >>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. >>> >> incremental? >> do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or >> 'remotely connected database-based file system' >> by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? >> good luck with such 'increments' :) > > Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring > work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object > technology, encapsulation. > The main problem with FileDirectory that there's no API. I can hardly call a single class as API... as to me, it is clear that file system domain is a bit more complex and in order to reflect it properly in a language you will need more that a single role (FileDirectory). So, i really doubt that you end up with 'little disruption to API'. It will be substantial. > Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt > about it. If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once > the conversion is done. I just think its worth asking, though, > whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model > out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives > lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich > model of a FileSystem. Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded > programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one? Maybe Spoon > will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..? > To me, design comes first. ALWAYS. All of the rest is secondary. FileSystem establishing a clear separation between conceptual model and implementation detail. The value of such improvement is hard to underestimate: users can learn fast & grasp well how to use it (and even understand better how file systems work). Moreover, it makes FileSystem nicely portable among dialects.. So, in future, if you would like to port your application to another dialect, you'll have to port FileSystem backend, instead of walking over your whole application and do patches all over the place.. Because once you have sound API, an effort to port application gravitates down to zero. Also, porting, in broad sense can mean 'porting from version X to version Y' (speaking about 'backwards compatimilimulability). API establishing a set of rules in a domain & models. The point is that domain does not changes that often, comparing to implementation. That means , if you have a good design, you can be assured that it won't require serious changes and will serve you much much longer without need to change anything in userland code. (Take a Collection protocols for example). Also, once you have such set of rules, it is much easier for people to maintain implementation code, as well as adding extra functionality if needed. Clearly, VM interfaces (such as primitives) should be not exposed to language 'as is', but always come with API. Because if you don't have rules, then you have very poor maintainability inside of system, as well as forcing users to reinvent their own wheel over and over again.. And next thing, if you would want one day to change primitives or change VM.. you will immediately hit the wall, with bloody 'backwards compatibility' sign on it. Because you will discover, that every single application implements own abstraction layer(s) (or even worse, use low-level functionality directly) on top of what you provided. So, to me, your statement looks contradictory: from one side, you are seriously concerned about backwards compatibility, but from another one, you trying to ignore/discard the facts that you cannot have good backwards compatibility without having a design and API in a first place. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

1 0

[Pharo-project] FileSystem (was: About (backwards) Compatibility)
by Chris Muller Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

>> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by >> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is >> feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo >> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. >> > incremental? > do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or > 'remotely connected database-based file system' > by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? > good luck with such 'increments' :) Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object technology, encapsulation. Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt about it. If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once the conversion is done. I just think its worth asking, though, whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich model of a FileSystem. Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one? Maybe Spoon will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..?

1 0