- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

No real argument, but it's not "my choice" - it's the only option. I had parsers not work and *COMPLETE* meltdowns that would scare away any new user, both until I followed the advice to shun the symbolic versions. Yes, there are gaps to close. ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Dale Henrichs [dhenrich(a)vmware.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:26 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? Bill, If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice. I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should expect them to close it... Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> | To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? | | It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to | have some base support in the core image. But I have had experts | tell me to *never* load a symbolic version. There is a gap to | close... | | | | ________________________________________ | From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Sean P. | DeNigris [sean(a)clipperadams.com] | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM | To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration | browser more visible? | | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote | > | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary | > instructions | > over time? | > | | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child | grow | up... | | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic | versions | (which were sorely needed). | | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on | someone | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. | Without | these, the API is hidden away in the project class. | | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo | to load | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I | think the | system browser would be much more helpful. | | Dale, what do you think about all this? | | HTH, | Sean | | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects | and | updating the configs... | | -- | View this message in context: | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visi… | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | | |

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Dale Henrichs

Sean, In my last post, I provided my vision of the future ... for the present, the answer is "what you see is what you get" ... When a new version of Pharo comes on the scene, the challenge is to port the existing configurations to the new version ... it does not happen magically and it does not happen over night and it does not happen without old fashioned effort ... When a new version of Pharo identifying configurations that don't work in the platform is a necessary task... it's no different than a bug in the base class library: feature x does not work configuration y does not load It would be nice if software and configurations could be written without bugs or could be written once to run on all conceivable future versions, but this is not the case ... Defining a #stable version for pharo1.4.x is a good way to indicate that the configuration has been ported to Pharo1.4 and loading the #stable version of a project is a good way to get the correct version of the project based on which platform you are on. If loading the #stable version blows up, that sounds like a bug to me, either in a configuration or the software itself ... If you don't want to experience the pain of developing on a new platform, then don't move to the new platform until the hubbub has died down ... Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> | To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:08:17 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? | | | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote | > | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary | > instructions | > over time? | > | | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child | grow | up... | | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic | versions | (which were sorely needed). | | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on | someone | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. | Without | these, the API is hidden away in the project class. | | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo | to load | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I | think the | system browser would be much more helpful. | | Dale, what do you think about all this? | | HTH, | Sean | | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects | and | updating the configs... | | -- | View this message in context: | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visi… | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | |

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Dale Henrichs

Sean, What do I think? I think that's a loaded question:) Honestly? I THINK that we've reached a cross roads for Monticello/Metacello. I THINK of Metacello as a pontoon bridge that keeps goods and services flowing while we build the real bridge. The "relentless evolution" of Pharo puts pressure on all parts of the ecosystem, in a good way. As developers, this evolutionary pressure is experienced as pain: - pain in having to port perfectly good code to yet another version of Pharo - pain in having to wait for other developers to port their projects - pain in finding new bugs in parts of the system that "used to work" - pain in having to work in a system without the high level tools that you'd like (because they haven't been ported yet) This is not a complaint. This is the reality. We can fold under the pressure or we can grow stronger. Pharo is evolving for all of the right reasons so we must respond and evolve and relieve the pain without surrendering progress: Change is painful. Change is necessary. Therefore pain is necessary. Metacello was originally developed to address specific pain points. It did a good job of addressing pain in some areas and not so good in other areas and of course, it also introduced a set of new pain points... Monticello/Metacello spans the following broad areas: version control configuration management build management And the strain of trying to address each of these areas is showing. I THINK that it doesn't make sense to continue to try to address all three areas under one umbrella. The version control area is probably Metacello's weakest point and is the area where the most difficult technical problems remain to be addressed. I THINK the best answer at the point is to divide and conquer. Thus the "crossroads." I THINK that Git/GitHub is superior to Monticello/Metacello/SqueakSource. See my talk on "Practical Git for Smalltalk" for my arguments[1]. I THINK that as a community we will be better off embracing the technology available in Git/GitHub than reinventing that wheel. Not only does Git/GitHub make it possible to share Smalltalk source between dialects (by having shared source code format[2] and a shared version control system), but Git/GitHub removes one of the barriers that newcomers to Smalltalk face: Git/Github is familiar to millions of developers. By eliminating version control responsibility from Metacello and embracing Git/GitHub a whole set of pain points are addressed. We have the new pain points of learning and using Git/GitHub, but with Metacello we have yet to INVENT the capabilities that Git/GitHub brings to the table, so I THINK we are ahead of the game by embracing Git/GitHub. If you skim through the "Metacello Scripting API" README[3] you'll get a taste of how I THINK Metacello can bridge the gap between Monticello/Metacello/SqueakSource and FileTree[4]/Metacello/Git/GitHub. Don't get me wrong, there are still some areas to be figured out ... Symbolic versions occupy a unique niche in our environment and I haven't quite figured out a way to replace them in the git/github world.... I THINK that the two worlds (mcz and git) must coexist for a long time so there must be a seamless integration of the two. The scripting API is being designed such that it can be included in the base image, so I THINK the scripting API (and Git/GitHub) will go a long ways towards removing the mystery from Configuration loads, while making the supporting tool set easier to build. I am still working out some of the finer points of integrating Metacello and Git/Github, but I'm hoping to have some concrete developments in the next month or so ... Dale [1] http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk [2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress/blob/master/README.md [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/MetacelloScriptingApiSpec/blob/master/README… [4] https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree/blob/master/README.md ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> | To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:08:17 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? | | | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote | > | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary | > instructions | > over time? | > | | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child | grow | up... | | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic | versions | (which were sorely needed). | | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on | someone | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. | Without | these, the API is hidden away in the project class. | | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo | to load | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I | think the | system browser would be much more helpful. | | Dale, what do you think about all this? | | HTH, | Sean | | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects | and | updating the configs... | | -- | View this message in context: | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visi… | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | |

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:11 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work. It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam. "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes. > > There are wide-spread problems. Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo. we are working on a solutiion for this (a "validator" for configurations). Nevertheless, even if we want to minimize the knwo/work requirements to create a valid configurations, with all automatic process we can create, there is always the fact that humans needs to create valid configurations. best, Esteban > > I don't know how else to put it. > > > > > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [guillermopolito(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized. > > I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know. What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed. If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :). > > Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to: > - know them > - tell the mantainers > - try to fix one? > - not yelling in general because that does not work :S. > > From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of: > - Glamour > - OpenDBXDriver > - Glorp + GlorpDBX > - ScriptManager > > so they can load in latest 1.4. But I can't be everywhere yet :P. > > Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so I expect most users are moving their stuff soon. > > Cheers, > Guille > > > > > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [guillermopolito(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM > > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? > > I meant: > > Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus. > Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside. > Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image. > > :P > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Wat? Probably there was a misunderstood... > > 1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine. > 2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version. Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :). > 3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine. > > Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus. > Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside. > Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image. > > Guille > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> wrote: > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time? > > > ________________________________________ > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [camillobruni(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? > > On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > > > Can they really download stuff? How much? Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging. > > > > Bill > > > > [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable. Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until. Prove me wrong :) > > seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code: > > ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of StÃ©phane Ducasse [stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr] > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM > > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? > > > > Ok for me. > > Package Maps Loader > > > > Stef > > > >> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that? > >> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools? > >> > >> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!" > >> > >> Guille

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Dale Henrichs

Bill, If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice. I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should expect them to close it... Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> | To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? | | It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to | have some base support in the core image. But I have had experts | tell me to *never* load a symbolic version. There is a gap to | close... | | | | ________________________________________ | From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Sean P. | DeNigris [sean(a)clipperadams.com] | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM | To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration | browser more visible? | | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote | > | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary | > instructions | > over time? | > | | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child | grow | up... | | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic | versions | (which were sorely needed). | | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on | someone | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. | Without | these, the API is hidden away in the project class. | | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo | to load | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I | think the | system browser would be much more helpful. | | Dale, what do you think about all this? | | HTH, | Sean | | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects | and | updating the configs... | | -- | View this message in context: | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visi… | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | | |

April 28, 2012

[Pharo-project] [update 2.0] #20027

by Marcus Denker

20027 ----- Issue 5731: Add trait test for a specific failing case http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5731 Issue 5729: remove #profile from InflateStream http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5729 -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

April 28, 2012

[Pharo-project] FFI - passing string to function as char*

by recursive68＠gmail.com

Hi, I'm trying to pass a smalltalk string to a FFI wrapper method I've written, the C function uses a macro "type" for the argument, but as far as I can see is basically a char* type. I've tried using char* as the argument type and it fails values to pass the string argument. If I change the argument type to a void* it works sort of partially, it passes additional memory values if I pass more than one argument to a version of the function with multiple arguments. As I understand it FFI should handle strings and coerce them to null terminated char* values when char* is used as the argument type. Is there something I'm missing, not understanding (very possible). I had similar problems when passing integer values but fixed that by using WordArray for the smalltalk type. Is there a similar fix for string objects, or someway other way of null terminating the string ? Thanks

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to have some base support in the core image. But I have had experts tell me to *never* load a symbolic version. There is a gap to close... ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Sean P. DeNigris [sean(a)clipperadams.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM To: pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote > > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions > over time? > I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child grow up... For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic versions (which were sorely needed). The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on someone manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. Without these, the API is hidden away in the project class. Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo to load some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I think the system browser would be much more helpful. Dale, what do you think about all this? HTH, Sean p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects and updating the configs... -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visi… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [Fwd: Re: [Newbies] Remove trailing spaces of aString]

by Benjamin

If you use Pharo, you can also do that Note that you have to change 'Selector' with 'Example', and then you can type a list of arguments separated by a dot and the expected result. (If you want some inner details, it will do something like methodFor: {_WHAT_YOU_HAVE_ENTER_}) Have fun, Ben On Apr 28, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Ben Coman wrote: > I just discovered this new "bit of magic" from the Newbies list. My first impression playing with it is that MethodFinder>>methodFor: should be somehow more prominent in Tools>Finder and also in PharoByExample book. Quite a unique feature and demonstration of Smalltalk power for newcomers. > > cheers -ben > > Am 2012-04-27 um 17:27 schrieb H. Hirzel: > >> Hello >> I use Squeak 4.3, Update 11860. >> I want to remove the trailing spaces and or tabs and LF of a String >> something like >> 'abc >> ' >> should just be >> 'abc'. >> If I remember that there was a method in class String to something >> like this. Is this correct? >> Is there a package with additional String convenience methods? > > you probably want > > 'abc ' withoutTrailingBlanks > > You can find that method by evaluating or printing > > MethodFinder methodFor: { {'abc '} . 'abc' } (a list with arguments {'abc '} and an expected result ( 'abc' )) > > HTH > > Best > -Tobias > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > >

April 28, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] CompiledMethod>>origin, traits, and bug in RPackage

by Guillermo Polito

This test reproduces the problem :) testOriginWithRequiredMethod | tr1 c1 | tr1 := self createTraitNamed: #TTT1 uses: {}. tr1 compile: 'foo ^ self explicitRequirement'. self assert: (tr1 >> #foo) origin == tr1. c1 := self createClassNamed: #CTT1 superclass: Object uses: tr1. self assert: (c1 >> #foo) origin == tr1. I'll submit an issue to integrate it. On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com > wrote: > In the paper it says that > > self assert: (C>>#c) origin = C. > > when m*ethod c is defined locally in class C*, which overrides its defi- > nition from Trait2. Its origin is then such a class C. > > And the definition does not stand any limitations on requirements... :/ > > I'll write some tests. > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:21 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < > stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> We should check that what we described in >> http://marcusdenker.de/publications/Duca09bTraitsAPI.pdf >> >> Stef >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote: >> >> > For example, the trait TPureBehavior has the method #traitComposition, >> which is an explicit requirement, and I can do >> > I have that: >> > >> > (TPureBehavior>>#traitComposition) origin. --> TPureBehavior >> > >> > which is nice. >> > Now lets suppose I create: >> > >> > Object subclass: #AAA >> > uses: TPureBehavior >> > instanceVariableNames: '' >> > classVariableNames: '' >> > poolDictionaries: '' >> > category: 'Guille' >> > >> > without creating the required traitComposition method >> > >> > (AAA>>#traitComposition) origin. --> AAA ?????????? shouldn't the >> origin be TPureBehavior? >> > >> > >> > The question is: Which is the intended behavior for the #origin of a >> method? Because that's causing an issue in RPackage :). >> > >> > >> > I've traced this, and it comes that if I have a trait method marked as >> explicitRequiriment, the following method answers just false >> > >> > CompiledMethod>>isProvided: marker >> > marker ifNil: [^ true]. >> > ^ (self isRequired: marker) not and: [(self isDisabled: marker) not] >> > >> > and then a magic ifNone: [ self ] return the receiver on the behavior, >> and that's why in both examples the method's behavior is returned instead >> of the origin. >> > Then we probably should have two methods >> > - #isProvided to see if an implementation is provided >> > - #isDefined if a definition for the method exists >> > but those names do not make me happy. >> > >> > Guille >> >> >> >

April 28, 2012