- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] RE : RE : RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

by GOUBIER Thierry

I will be a bit harder to convince then. 1 MCPackage = N RPackage doesn't strike me as any better than 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage with tags, apart from performance issues. Remember that I was using option 1 in depth and hitting bugs, but not that much. My opinion is that you don't really know what went wrong with option 1, except the implementation became unmanageable. So, I expect option 2 to be hardly better, sadly. And, as it promises breaking existing configurations, it will be a lot more fun ! By the way, if you enlarge the vision with RPackage, and think about the size of the overall system and how it has evolved a lot since the class categories of the beginning of Smalltalk, then your option 2 is, for me, already obsolete. You need more levels than the two you are promising with option 2. Scrolling throught thousands of categories is not fun; having packages which add hundreds of methods as an extension to a class is clearly not scalable and manageable. And scrolling through hundreds of package isn't either (or are you all working on 30" screens ? I'm not.). >That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to >reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either. This is wrong, since RPackageOrganizer, being aware of the changes, could update monticello and maintain a coherent view. It would have made the situation a tiny bit better. Thierry ________________________________________ De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [estebanlm(a)gmail.com] Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 22:37 Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE : RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo Hi, On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: > It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes. > > The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well). That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage. And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close. Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories. Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system. Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity? Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow. So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :( > > The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair. > > When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ? "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together. So... for me is important to maintain that notion. Now, there are two point of views: 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system. Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite. > > (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't) you're right, it is not. > > One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system). That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either. Esteban > > Thierry > > ________________________________________ > De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] > Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37 > Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > >> Ok, >> >> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way. >> >> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(. > > > you are not the only one. Benjamin too. > Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun. > > >> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ? > > Yes > Ideally we want > one MCPackage - one RPackage + tags > > Nothing more (no class category, no package info). > Now we should be able to remove class categories. > But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package). > So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration. > > > So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards > one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes. > >> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ? > > You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer." > So yes it would be good to clean all that. > RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility. > > >

Sept. 7, 2012

[Pharo-project] Zinc WebSockets Demo Movie

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi, Today I implemented two simple demos to show what is possible using Zinc WebSockets. 1. a simple chatroom - each client opens a websocket to the chatroom service running on the server - the server keeps track of all connected client web sockets - when a message comes in from any client it is distributed to all clients - each client shows all incoming messages 2. a simple, continously updated status view - a client connects and listens for incoming messages containing a status report - the server streams status reports to each connected client each second - in the web browser you get to see the Smalltalk image's clock, memory and process stats I made a 5 minute (silent ;-) movie showing 3 different browsers talking to one Pharo Smalltalk 2.0 image running a Zn server. Faster, but lower quality: http://youtu.be/CANkfSUbZIk Pixel perfect quality, but 45Mb: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16235440/Zinc-WebSockets-Demo-20120907.mov The code can be found in http://mc.stfx.eu/ZincHTTPComponents packages Zinc-WebSockets-Core and Zinc-WebSockets-Tests best update all of Zn. Only tested on 2.0, but it should work on 1.4. This is still a work-in-progress. There are code comments but high level documentation is still missing. I am looking for adventureous testers though. Sven -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RE : RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: > It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes. > > The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well). That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage. And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close. Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories. Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system. Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity? Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow. So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :( > > The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair. > > When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ? "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together. So... for me is important to maintain that notion. Now, there are two point of views: 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system. Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite. > > (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't) you're right, it is not. > > One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system). That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either. Esteban > > Thierry > > ________________________________________ > De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] > Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37 > Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > >> Ok, >> >> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way. >> >> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(. > > > you are not the only one. Benjamin too. > Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun. > > >> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ? > > Yes > Ideally we want > one MCPackage - one RPackage + tags > > Nothing more (no class category, no package info). > Now we should be able to remove class categories. > But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package). > So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration. > > > So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards > one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes. > >> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ? > > You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer." > So yes it would be good to clean all that. > RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility. > > >

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Rounding float question again

by Chris Cunningham

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/9/7 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: >> Thank's for your answer. >> Only one of your solutions works: >> (146.015 asMinimalDecimalFraction roundTo: 1/100) asFloat => 146.02 >> >> Others not works: >> >> (146.015 * 100.0) rounded / 100.0 => 146.01 >> (146.015 asFraction roundTo: 1/100) asFloat => 146.01 >> >> > > That's expected, '146.015' asFloat is already smaller than > (146015/1000) so if you convert the float value asFraction or > asScaledDecimal, it's too late, rounding error is already there. You > have to use Fraction, ScaledDecimal or FixedDecimal of Chris right > from the beginning, and don't use Float at all. > If you used ScaledDecimal, you will need to make sure that all parts of it are ScaledDecimal, too - no mixing of Floats anywhere: This doesn't work: 146.015s3 roundTo: 0.01 => 146.01 but this does 146.015s3 roundTo: 0.01s2 => 146.02s2 -Chris

Sept. 7, 2012

[Pharo-project] RE : RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

by GOUBIER Thierry

It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes. The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well). The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair. When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ? (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't) One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system). Thierry ________________________________________ De : pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] de la part de StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37 Ã : Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > Ok, > > It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way. > > Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(. you are not the only one. Benjamin too. Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun. > Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ? Yes Ideally we want one MCPackage - one RPackage + tags Nothing more (no class category, no package info). Now we should be able to remove class categories. But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package). So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration. So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes. > Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ? You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer." So yes it would be good to clean all that. RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] Programmer Day @ Buenos Aires

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

thanks for the effort! Stef On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:22 PM, NicolÃ¡s Paez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > As may know, next Tuesday is the Programmer Day and a non-profit organisation in Buenos Aires in organizing a conference at the City Hall. I was invited to give a presentation in this conference about the any topic I considered relevant for the occasion and I decided to talk about Pharo. Other speakers will be talking about Node.js, Web APIs and Cloud Computing. > > If you are around Buenos Aires and want to attend, just register here, is free. > > Saludos! > NicoPaez >

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote: > Ok, > > It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way. > > Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(. you are not the only one. Benjamin too. Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun. > Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ? Yes Ideally we want one MCPackage - one RPackage + tags Nothing more (no class category, no package info). Now we should be able to remove class categories. But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package). So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration. So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes. > Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ? You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer." So yes it would be good to clean all that. RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> > Good thing to have a rationale for where you want to be going and why... > It would be interesting to have it documented.For example: > - A package is holding strong references to class/methods belonging to > it or not? did you read the class comment of RPackage? Because this is explained normally. Now the answer a RPackage does not hold references to class or compiledMethod but to class names and selectors so that it could potentially be used for now working classes. > - Does a class know (directly point to) its package, or is it a > service provided by some helper object? RPackageOrganizer so far we did not modify class but manage the invariant class/package using announcement > - Does a method know (directly point to) its package, or is it a > service provided by some helper object? CompiledMethod package and this is manager by PackageOrganizer > - Are there unpackaged classes/methods (pointing to nil?), is there a > service to discover them? Not that I know. > - What is the relation with st80 classification (class categories and > method protocols)? Is it completely orthogonal? Totally. > - Should class/methods have multi-classification (belong to several > categories protocols)? A class belongs to only one packages Now you can have tags (I implemented it but may be we will not use it) to have virtual categories For methods packages are orthogonal to categories (now we are maintaining for the moment the * notation). > You can call that tags if you want... > pro/cons for each point > > Then it's another thing to tell how you will reach these goals, and > if/how you will maintain compatibility with MC (a vital tool) or other > tools (browsers nautilus RB change list/change sorter etc...) - which > might be possible by faking categories/protocols. the compatibility is first when you load -> * star notation in the mcz -> category announcement -> extension in the repackage saving -> we should check that the package and the categories get the same contents -> saving with * in category So for now we will maintain a compatibility and in the future we will see. > For french: Je dirai qu'on a l'eau Ã la bouche, mais qu'on reste un > peu sur notre faim ;) > >>> So, we rolled back... >>> >>> Attempt 2) Let each Class Category be one RPackage. >>> >>> Ok, this is very simple (and that's the beauty on it)... each tools and >>> conventions will match perfectly. Only problem here is that now, Monticello >>> is not compatible anymore. So, we worked on the concept of RPackageSet, to >>> replace PackageInfo use into Monticelo packages (we need them to load/save >>> packages and stay compatible). RPackageSet is exactly what its name says: a >>> set of RPackage instances (created on the fly, by pattern matching, so, is >>> still some kind of a hack), that is polymorphic with PackageInfo in the >>> monticello context. Thus, everything in the system can remain unchanged (or >>> almost no change, the refactoring engine needs some adjusts). >>> One extra bonus with this approach is that it let us think on more cool >>> refactors in the future: we can for instance replace class categories (now a >>> symbol) with an RPackage... and continue simplifying the system in several >>> ways. >>> >>> ...and that's where we are now. >>> We are working hard on stabilizing the system, but that will take still >>> some days more... after that, we will be really close to the PackageInfo >>> removal. >>> > > Good, if the system was too complex in order to analyze all > implications and completely planify the change path, then trial and > error might be a solution, it's not a shame, but you have to write > your goals to better remind them, and maybe make some amendments to > your rationale because of some unanticipated features (and providing > some degree of compatibility can lead to additional features). Compatibitilty of MC and configurations will be maintain. If we could have got rid of the last one it would have solved a lot of our pain. > >>> PLEASE: PackageInfo users, take this into account: PackageInfo will pass >>> away... and is one of the parts of the system that cannot be deprecated, >>> they has to be completely removed, prepare your tools for the rise of >>> RPackage :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Esteban >>> > > Such a change will require a stable and if possible well documented > API (which should be quite straightforward once you have rationalized > your design). Have a look at the RPackage class. It is really nice. The pain is not it, the pain is the system and the pattern matching and event and â¦. and having packages and categories. Stef > > Nicolas > >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >

Sept. 7, 2012

[Pharo-project] Programmer Day @ Buenos Aires

by NicolÃ¡s Paez

Hello everyone, As may know, next Tuesday is the Programmer Day<http://www.programmerday.info/>and a non-profit organisation in Buenos Aires in organizing a conference at the City Hall. I was invited to give a presentation in this conference about the any topic I considered relevant for the occasion and I decided to talk about Pharo. Other speakers will be talking about Node.js, Web APIs and Cloud Computing. If you are around Buenos Aires and want to attend, just register here<http://www.mug.org.ar/Eventos/3806.aspx>, is free. Saludos! NicoPaez <http://nicopaez.wordpress.com/>

Sept. 7, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] nil key in last literal in instance side methods (reproducible)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On > No, I'm just suggesting a poor man's simple diff in a mailing list, > like squeak trunk. > -1) inbox diff : you open a review to the whole community for comments, > -2) commit phase (whatever the checks you perform now are unchanged, > except you have to take above review into account) > -3) trunk diff : you open a last chance review (or post mortem > analysis) to retract/correct commits > > It's totally informal, and why would it work? You have to answer this > question first: > - how many people have ubiquitous web access to read the code and > qualified enough to emit a useful comment? > - how many people are downloading an image, updating to some version, > opening a MC browser, browsing the diffs? > > You are proposing a much more ellaborated process to review code > before integration. > I agree, this information belongs to issue tracker. > But formalizing and programming this process is involving (think about > concurrent solution, roles, requests/answers timelines etc...) > As you said, who will do it? > > From pragmatic POV, I prefer a light process that provides some help, > than no help at all (which is close to what you get with current state > of issue tracker). > The code producing the diff and sendig the mail already exist, (you'll > have to handle SLICE though)... Bonus: it's Smalltalk code. > > If you prefer to wait for something better, then let's waitâ¦ is there a setting in ss3 that can do that? How this is done in squeak? > > Nicolas >

Sept. 7, 2012