Nov. 1, 2016
1:54 p.m.
Le 29/10/16 à 08:39, phil@highoctane.be a écrit :
> Having them in image can indeed be useful.
>
> I am testing against REST backends, and well, this is a destructive
> test to say the least. Not easy to replay as much as I want.
>
> I hope that with the Bootstrap we'll be able to have a set of
> "Batteries Included" distributions. Kind of like we have Moose today,
> which I like very much as I do not have to load parts from all over
> the place.
Yes we will now people will be able to also define their own image.
At the end
bootstrap
+ configura
+ jenkins
= an image
>
> On http://tcl.tk there are also a number of such distributions:
>
> * the "Batteries Included" ActiveTcl
> (http://www.activestate.com/activetcl) with its various support levels
> [which would be good to emulate for the Pharo Pro business proposition]
>
> * TclKit / StarKits concept (http://wiki.tcl.tk/52). TclKit is a
> BaseKit. See http://wiki.tcl.tk/15985 for a table of kits and their
> supported features.
>
> * Build your own from sources.
>
> TclKit allows one to build special kit, using a command line tool,
> similar to what we discuss for loading packages easily.
> http://wiki.tcl.tk/10558
>
> We do have an image and the TclKit has a VFS (Virtual File System)
> bundling everything in a single file.
>
> So, basically, one runs things with tclkit hello.kit. Quite
> reminiscent of pharo Pharo.image I'd say.
>
> Question 1:
>
> Which top 5 packages/configurations would you find useful to have
> available in a distribution?
>
> 1-
> 2-
> 3-
> 4-
> 5-
>
> Question 2:
>
> What do you consider to be the top 3 use cases of a Pharo Distribution
> for your own use?
>
> 1-
> 2-
> 3-
>
> Best,
> Phil
>
>
>
> `
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov
> <dionisiydk@gmail.com <mailto:dionisiydk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito
> <guillermopolito@gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>>:
>
> No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as
> possible!
>
> I would say this dependency is needed.
>
> And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can
> do it. There is no need to put it there by default.
>
> Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test
> FileSystem with mocks. Code and tests will be much better and
> simpler from the beginning.
> And I could said it about any package which provide abstractions.
>
> Now no project which is part of Pharo can use mocks for tests. So
> it is not question of loading it for own project. Pharo
> contributors can't use mocks.
>
> And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo
> development (not real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use
> mocks and "human should" assertions. Most TDD evolution was from
> Ruby. I imaging their impression about Pharo "the best for TDD".
>
> And generally I would said we have quite bad tests in system. They
> are slow, they corrupt image. Mocks will help to improve this
> situation.
>
>