- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

new collaborators in Pharo 5

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, So, according to my script, this are the new collaborators (people who started contributing after 1st march 2015): Maxleske CyrilFerlicot Latsabben Nicolaihess synectique BorisSpasojevic Stef Bite hn SvenVanCaekebenberghe StefnReichhart NicoPasserini DEMAREYChristophe HenrikNergrd SkipLentz Spirita Fuel TravisCI HolgerHansPeterFreyther SpurBootstrap qdq SergioFedi jeanbaptisteArnaud AutoGenTutorial PabloTesone ThomasHeniart ValentinRyckewaert mml HenrikNergaard MarcusDenkr DenisKudriashov Alexandre mcamp Matthieu w3ertyu VincentBlondeauAbdelghaniAlidra TH MerwanOuddane ChristopherCoat AlainRastoul FranckWarlouzet AbdelghaniLaidra ThibaultArloing pad RogerStebler DavidAllouche RM tr Obviouslyâ¦ many are wrong since they started contributing a lot before (like Sven and Stef :P â¦ I wonder why the difference gave me thisâ¦ but wellâ¦ ) Anyway, I need to know who are this guys: - synectique (I suppose is Guillome, Usman or Cyril) - Bite (I hope this is not a french guy, because in that case is soooooo rudeâ¦ or proud of himself :P) - hn - Spirita - qdq - mml - Alexandre (Bergel?) - mcamp - Matthieu - w3ertyu - TH - pad - RM - tr Soâ¦ any hints about authors? thanks, Esteban

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:41, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Really? This installs new software on ubuntu's ppa http://get.pharo.org/travis <http://get.pharo.org/travis> ah yesâ¦ I misunderstood your quote. Yes, travis zeroconf were working just on ubuntu :) But those scripts are not used. Never been. And less now that smalltalk-ci and others do not use âsudo modeâ anymoreâ¦ thatâs why I will remove them: they are wrong and legacy and not used. Esteban > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:34, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> No, smalltalkCI uses regular images/vms https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45 <https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45> >> >> Besides the travis zeroconf is applicable only to Ubuntu, smalltalkCI can run on any system, even locally. > > not trueâ¦ zeroconf works in almost any linux (and mac, and windows) if dependencies are correctlyâ¦ the exception are those with oldLibC, but travis does not use them :) > >> >> Peter >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>> wrote: >> They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI <https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI> ? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) >> >> >> >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ <http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/> >> >> > >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

Really? This installs new software on ubuntu's ppa http://get.pharo.org/travis On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:34, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, smalltalkCI uses regular images/vms > https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45 > > Besides the travis zeroconf is applicable only to Ubuntu, smalltalkCI can > run on any system, even locally. > > > not trueâ¦ zeroconf works in almost any linux (and mac, and windows) if > dependencies are correctlyâ¦ the exception are those with oldLibC, but > travis does not use them :) > > > Peter > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Serge Stinckwich < > serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI >> ? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) >> >> >> >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >> > >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:34, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, smalltalkCI uses regular images/vms https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45 <https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45> > > Besides the travis zeroconf is applicable only to Ubuntu, smalltalkCI can run on any system, even locally. not trueâ¦ zeroconf works in almost any linux (and mac, and windows) if dependencies are correctlyâ¦ the exception are those with oldLibC, but travis does not use them :) > > Peter > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>> wrote: > They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI <https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI> ? > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) > > > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ <http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/> > >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 29 Apr 2016, at 08:47, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI ? > > nop just to be a bit more precise: they are not used because they are not necessaryâ¦ it uses just âregularâ zeroconf :) > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) >> >> >> >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

(and by any system I don't mean windows... :) ) On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > No, smalltalkCI uses regular images/vms > https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45 > > Besides the travis zeroconf is applicable only to Ubuntu, smalltalkCI can > run on any system, even locally. > > Peter > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Serge Stinckwich < > serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI >> ? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) >> >> >> >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >> >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 08:47, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI ? nop > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) > > > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

No, smalltalkCI uses regular images/vms https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/blob/master/pharo/run.sh#L45 Besides the travis zeroconf is applicable only to Ubuntu, smalltalkCI can run on any system, even locally. Peter On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Serge Stinckwich < serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI > ? > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) > > > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] zeroconf for release pharo50 will remove "travis" scripts...

by Serge Stinckwich

They are not used by SmalltalkCI : https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI ? On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > â¦ because nobody uses them, and they are not needed :) -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

April 29, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Logging API discussion

by Tudor Girba

Hi Denis, > On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-04-28 14:51 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > It is not the most elegant solution, but it is very malleable and good enough for debugging purposes. If we would have instance-based filtering for announcements, we could filter based on that without any extra effort. Also, if we would have a composition mechanism in place, we could build these objects with a more elegant API. > > Regarding your statement of logging domain objects, you will have to store these objects with the additional information somewhere, and that will be a wrapper class. I do not see the difference with the Signal. > > Difference with Beacon is that users will not depends on objects from logging library. Nobody needs to subclass core components like Signal. > Instead domain objects will be added to logs inside general LogEntry instances which will be hidden from user and only available inside logs. And LogEntry will allow include additional information to itself by appropriate logging API. > > Question is: does it better? > And this is what problem I see around Beacon: > > Beacon proposes to design log entries as events, as subclasses of BeaconSignal. If nothing else exists it is good. We will see in logs collection of such events. > But what to do with existing domain events which has no relation to logs? How to log them if we decide to do it? > > They can be added to log inside WrapperSignal. But then we will see in logs mix of normal events which created specially for logs and WrapperSignal's containing original application events. > But both type of events belong to same application. We definitely want to see them and to work with them in same way everywhere (especially inside logs) > > Tudor what do you think about this problem? Maybe I misunderstood Beacon. Thanks for the dialogue. I think the most important part is to identify concerns and now we are getting concrete. So, letâs see :). Your LogEntry is exactly the same as BeaconSignal. There is no difference. You will also need to transport the LogEntry from your application to the logger object. Beacon reuses the Announcement framework to do just that. If you avoid the Announcement framework, you will implement another engine that has essentially the same responsibility. I think it is better to consolidate in this case. So, I see no downside of using Beacon for your purpose. But, I think there is more. One example where we have an event that is often worthwhile preserving is an Exception. In Beacon there is an out-of-the-box ExceptionSignal. This is not just a wrapper around the exception, but it also decides what to log from an Exception. For example, in order to ensure that we can have proper navigation of the exception, we capture the RB nodes for each stack entry. This is a naive implementation and we should certainly improve it (for example, we would need to delegate the computation of the stack information as late as possible), but it exemplifies how when you log you want to choose what to log. It can be that in another situation, we want to log the whole context of the exception. Furthermore, because we have a typed signal, we can also have a Stack presentation that depends on the strategy we used to log, not on the object that we logged. I believe this is a recurrent case. Nothing would prevent us from logging the exception through a plain WrapperSignal either. Only in that case we would not have the extra information that the ExceptionSignal provides. So, from this point of view, the ability to create types of signals is not a limitation, but an added value. That is why in my message I said that we should encourage people to create typed signals, but we should not enforce that. You mentioned that maybe your event object has a timestamp already. This timestamp is not the same as the logging timestamp, and it should be treated separately. If it is the same, that situation is so rare that I doubt we should optimize the whole framework around such a problem. Does this make sense? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."

April 28, 2016