Janko, 

that's already done (since ever), and FD is provided in two different ways: in the graveyard is the old FD package (loadable into pharo 2.0) http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/Graveyard20  , and also Camillo made a FD wrapper to FS...

Esteban

On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Janko Miv�ek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> wrote:

Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, pi�e Igor Stasenko:

On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko Miv�ek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> wrote:

Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't
stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package
marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so
where is the problem?

Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower.
Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers?

Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to
new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not
doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional
product Pharo should think rather that way.

Janko

I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration
path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a
guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible
with some automated procedure to migrate our code.

In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big
change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us
as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user
base behind.

But there is a well-written documentation of FS.
I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed.

Best regards
Janko

Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, pi�e St�phane Ducasse:

Chris

Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee?
We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living.
May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day
we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers).

I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to
spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove
to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D

Now nobody force you to:
     - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or
     phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system.

     - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect.

Did you read the Pharo motto?

Stef


On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote:

I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go..  I
don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or
intentional false-propaganda but...  confusion reigns here!  :)  This
example is bunk.

Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002
which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's
not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how
using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory.
The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is:

"FileDirectory"
localFileName: aString
      | file |
      super localFileName: aString.
      file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString.
      file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ].
      self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime.

"FileSystem"
localFileName: aString
      | file |
      super localFileName: aString.
      file := aString asFileName.
      file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ].
      self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime.

Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights
with FileSystem!  (not!)



On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris
<sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

Chris Muller-4 wrote

While someone in the Pharo
community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an
incremental API change

Can you still say that after reading
http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?!

FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw
my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted
on a great work of art.

Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the
barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked
on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of
objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic
layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to
put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even
possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't
know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went
back to the standard tools.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and
makes these types of arguments moot:
- Better for the better
- Beauty to learn from
- Not backward compatible
- Clean, lean and fast

Cheers,
Sean

--
Janko Miv�ek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

--
Janko Miv�ek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si