[Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo Metacello Universes
Hi Miguel, hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ... Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser: - file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested). Bye T. -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions.
Yes this was the idea behind metacelloRepositories we talk about with dale on the metacello ml. But you probably know that.
Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
expect if you work with multiple images and you have to always clicks clicks clicks....
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Cool as soon as we fix the name I will integrate your browser in 1.2 Can you open an issue? Stef
Bye T. -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 <Universe-UI.st>_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell! I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had: - Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names) Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions. 2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository:  SystemVersion current universeName  "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
 - file in the attached changeset  (I tried in Pharo 1.2)  - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser"  - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose  -- "Load configuration"           -> only the config is loaded  -- "Load configuration and latest version"  -> the config and lates version  is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió:
Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up. The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
thanks for the explanation :) this is great! On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió:
Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories
Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Miguel, I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ... A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases. Dale Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió:
Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories
Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Maybe I saying nonsense, if that is the case just ignore me but... why have many packages that do almost exactly the same? Aren't you going to get a lot of repeated code lying around in different packages? ie. I think most packages have almost exactly the same baselines for pharo1.x. Maybe it's possible to call the methods baselineXXForPharoXX and let them stay in the same class and package? Or maybe adding other pragma to specify which pharo version each baseline/version describes. I'm sure there could be other solutions. That way you'd have all the configurations in the same place and also reuse code if needed instead of duplicating it. Regards, Javier. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Miguel,
I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ...
A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases.
Dale
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió:
Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2)
- open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires
self contained. In a project I do not care what the world is doing. What I want is my exact project to load the way I want and all the time in a productable manner. So I want to control which part may change (my code) and which part is curved into the stone. So duplication is not a problem. Then if I load a specific version then the recursion of the model make sure that it will load all the necessary package. so this is not like we do not have abstractions to build upon. Stef On Aug 5, 2010, at 4:32 AM, Javier Pimás wrote:
Maybe I saying nonsense, if that is the case just ignore me but... why have many packages that do almost exactly the same? Aren't you going to get a lot of repeated code lying around in different packages? ie. I think most packages have almost exactly the same baselines for pharo1.x. Maybe it's possible to call the methods baselineXXForPharoXX and let them stay in the same class and package? Or maybe adding other pragma to specify which pharo version each baseline/version describes. I'm sure there could be other solutions. That way you'd have all the configurations in the same place and also reuse code if needed instead of duplicating it.
Regards, Javier.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote: Miguel,
I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ...
A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases.
Dale
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote: El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió: Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>: El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió: Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 23:32 -0300, Javier Pimás escribió:
Maybe I saying nonsense, if that is the case just ignore me but... why have many packages that do almost exactly the same? Aren't you going to get a lot of repeated code lying around in different packages? ie. I think most packages have almost exactly the same baselines for pharo1.x. Maybe it's possible to call the methods baselineXXForPharoXX and let them stay in the same class and package? Or maybe adding other pragma to specify which pharo version each baseline/version describes. I'm sure there could be other solutions. That way you'd have all the configurations in the same place and also reuse code if needed instead of duplicating it.
Clarity. As is very likely that different releases of a package will have distinct requirements in: - dependencies - preinstall/postinstall actions - registering with system services (menu, mail systems, sockets, startup/stop list) - number of monticello packages composing the package you're installing - use of system infraestructure (announcements, transcript, menus, help system) it will be a nightmare to have code to cope with all those conditions in a single monolithic giant metacello package, even if metacello is capable of do it. What if after 4 years of development the package has had 15 releases, that will means that you'll have possibly 15 baselines/predoits/postdoits all listing in the method pane of the browser. To someone trying to understand the configuration, it will be a lot of junk to discard before he understand only the bits that matter for the release he is interested in. So, it is healthy to have a distinct configuration in each release (even if in the current release started as a copy of the previous release configuration), to crop the things the _maintainer_ thinks are not needed anymore or simply that he doesn't want to maintain anymore. All the software has a lifetime and distinct repositories gives us the possibility to determine the time to end support for a given release Cheers
Regards, Javier.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote: Miguel,
I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ...
A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases.
Dale
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió: Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>: El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió: Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
On 05.08.2010, at 17:09, Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 23:32 -0300, Javier Pimás escribió:
Maybe I saying nonsense, if that is the case just ignore me but... why have many packages that do almost exactly the same? Aren't you going to get a lot of repeated code lying around in different packages? ie. I think most packages have almost exactly the same baselines for pharo1.x. Maybe it's possible to call the methods baselineXXForPharoXX and let them stay in the same class and package? Or maybe adding other pragma to specify which pharo version each baseline/version describes. I'm sure there could be other solutions. That way you'd have all the configurations in the same place and also reuse code if needed instead of duplicating it.
I think Javier is right. I, too, have problems to understand how this should work. A lot of the ConfigurationOfxxx files are about software projects that run on pharo and aren't _part_ of it. Just take a project like seaside. That is a project that runs on a lot of platforms (hence the existence of grease).
Clarity. As is very likely that different releases of a package will have distinct requirements in: - dependencies
that is what metacello is all about
- preinstall/postinstall actions - registering with system services (menu, mail systems, sockets, startup/stop list)
that is platform specific. For seaside that needs to be solved from the seaside crew otherwise they won't stay cross-platform very long. And I think there is no point in many people writing in a ConfigurationOfSeaside30 file. Those files should be very dependent on the people writing seaside. Do you think you will add pharo1.1 stuff to the file?
- number of monticello packages composing the package you're installing
that's dependencies
- use of system infraestructure (announcements, transcript, menus, help system)
again platform handling
it will be a nightmare to have code to cope with all those conditions in a single monolithic giant metacello package, even if metacello is capable of do it. What if after 4 years of development the package has had 15 releases, that will means that you'll have possibly 15 baselines/predoits/postdoits all listing in the method pane of the browser. To someone trying to understand the configuration, it will be a lot of junk to discard before he understand only the bits that matter for the release he is interested in.
So, it is healthy to have a distinct configuration in each release (even if in the current release started as a copy of the previous release configuration), to crop the things the _maintainer_ thinks are not needed anymore or simply that he doesn't want to maintain anymore. All the software has a lifetime and distinct repositories gives us the possibility to determine the time to end support for a given release
Please correct me if I'm wrong. By copying the configuration files you make a snapshot of the project without the possibility to alter anything. The configuration file itself is modified by the software project the file is for. Probably the software project does not want anyone to write in the config file. To me a central repository is essential. It is a single well-known source and it carries the idea of cross-platformness :) Isn't that would you are trying to solve not just another ConfigurationOfXXX file. For the moment let's call it ConfigurationOfPharo10Universe. There you can refer to every single version in another ConfigurationOfXXX file that is said to be runnable in that platform. And you can decorate it with pre-/postDoits as you want. I think that most of this software management tasks are solvable by a description of "requires" and "provides". And metacello solves it well. As an example let's think of an example like ConfigurationOfPharoWebDeveloperImage (maintained by the image provider). The developer image develops linearly hence no version number in the file. The ConfigurationOfPharoWebDeveloperImage has dependencies to 20 other software projects that are all defined in a ConfigurationOfPharo11Universe (maintained by the community). Let's say it has a dependency on 'Seaside 3.0'. ConfigurationOfPharo11Universe offers 'Seaside 3.0' and has a dependency of 'Seaside 3.0.3' in ConfigurationOfSeaside30 (maintained by the seaside maintainers). ConfigurationOfSeaside30 has a dependency to 'Grease 1.0.3' in ConfigurationOfGrease. So let's asssume finally that ConfigurationOfGrease would have a dependency to 'Pharo 1.1' when run under pharo1.1 or to 'Pharo 1.1 compat package' when run under pharo 1.0 (metacello allows us to do that). All of these descriptions require and provide anything. And the descriptions are services offered from one group to another taking a certain responsibility. You can always rely on things like "Seaside 3.0" if you trust the people and if not than you use "Seaside 3.0.4rc2a". What I wanted to say is that there are plenty of situations where you want to cluster software packages together. By copying the files you just double to stuff without being able to tweak. Removing the packages from the MetacelloRepository as Stephane suggested would just make them platform dependent. Having less files and clear roles who might change them is something achievable IMHO. Tearing things apart (by copying) lowers sometimes integration effort. Or to say with view from the XML world: "If you want to integrate/cooperate than XML schema is for you If you don't want to do that than use XML namespaces". Norbert
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote: Miguel,
I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ...
A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases.
Dale
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió: Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>: El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió: Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
El jue, 05-08-2010 a las 19:45 +0200, Norbert Hartl escribió: First some terms that I use: - Software Package: a collection of classes that conform a working, useful software. Often is convey to other users in the form of one o various monticello packages. - Software Release: a stamped snapshot of a Software package - Monticello: a software that creates mcz files, called monticello packages that comprises a set of classes that are part of a Software Package. - Configuration, ConfigurationOfXXX: Metacello configuration that loads a set of Monticello Packages that together form a release of a Software Package.
I think Javier is right. I, too, have problems to understand how this should work. A lot of the ConfigurationOfxxx files are about software projects that run on pharo and aren't _part_ of it. Just take a project like seaside. That is a project that runs on a lot of platforms (hence the existence of grease).
The ConfigurationOfXXX packages _are_ for packages not part of a core or released image. That is their raison d'être.
Clarity. As is very likely that different releases of a package will have distinct requirements in: - dependencies
that is what metacello is all about
Yes, but it complicates a lot when you try to use a single Configuration to load several releases of a Software Package in several releases of Pharo. Just see the size of the configuration of ConfigurationOfSeaside28 that handles pharo, sqeuak and gemstone installs. I'm sure that Dale tried to add also support for Seaside 3.0 in the same Configuration but that were so much effort compared to just create a new ConfigurationOfSeaside30 that handles only the required mcz packages for 3.0 and forgets and don't care about the mcz packages for 2.8. I was about of doing the same for ConfigurationOfMagma. I considered create a new ConfigurationForMagma11r2 that handles only the packages for that release (that are not so distinct to the previous release as in the case of Seaside, but the scenario is the same). No way. That is not the solution. Not at a long term. So the metacello repositories idea (that was already discussed before) was a perfect solution.
- preinstall/postinstall actions - registering with system services (menu, mail systems, sockets, startup/stop list)
that is platform specific. For seaside that needs to be solved from the seaside crew otherwise they won't stay cross-platform very long. And I think there is no point in many people writing in a ConfigurationOfSeaside30 file. Those files should be very dependent on the people writing seaside. Do you think you will add pharo1.1 stuff to the file?
The ConfigurationOfSeasideXX aren't created, maintained, debuged or cared by the Seaside core developers. And that is good. They concentrate in the Seaside code, and the Configuration maintainers (Dale) concentrate in the installation issue in the various platforms. Of course the maintainer coordinate with the upstream developers to solve platform specific problems, and of course nothing stops a core developer of a Software Package to maintain the ConfigurationOfTheirOwnPackage (as OSProcess' creator is doing)
- number of monticello packages composing the package you're installing
that's dependencies
Yes but they are distinct for each Pharo release: - because maybe the Pharo release already includes some package previously required by the package (e.g Announcements being part of the core) - because the new Pharo release unloaded some package that previously was part of the core system (e.g. if it depends on Crypto and crypto isn't anymore part of the core image). And also they are distinct in each Software Package release: - because the Software Package was simplified to not use some package anymore - because the Software Package includes new functionality that isn't part of the core system
- use of system infraestructure (announcements, transcript, menus, help system)
again platform handling
ditto.
it will be a nightmare to have code to cope with all those conditions in a single monolithic giant metacello package, even if metacello is capable of do it. What if after 4 years of development the package has had 15 releases, that will means that you'll have possibly 15 baselines/predoits/postdoits all listing in the method pane of the browser. To someone trying to understand the configuration, it will be a lot of junk to discard before he understand only the bits that matter for the release he is interested in.
So, it is healthy to have a distinct configuration in each release (even if in the current release started as a copy of the previous release configuration), to crop the things the _maintainer_ thinks are not needed anymore or simply that he doesn't want to maintain anymore. All the software has a lifetime and distinct repositories gives us the possibility to determine the time to end support for a given release
Please correct me if I'm wrong. By copying the configuration files you make a snapshot of the project without the possibility to alter anything. The configuration file itself is modified by the software project the file is for. Probably the software project does not want anyone to write in the config file.
I don't understand this previous paragraph. What config files are you refering to, the Metacello configuration? If so they are in Read/Write repositories to all to modify. Also, they are by the license notice in the page, MIT, so there is no way someone can stop other to modify the Configuration for adapting it when a new Pharo release (or gemstone or squeak) is out.
To me a central repository is essential. It is a single well-known source and it carries the idea of cross-platformness :) Isn't that would you are trying to solve not just another ConfigurationOfXXX file. For the moment let's call it ConfigurationOfPharo10Universe. There you can refer to every single version in another ConfigurationOfXXX file that is said to be runnable in that platform. And you can decorate it with pre-/postDoits as you want.
Yes, I know, the ConfigurationOfMagma does depends on other packages too: OSProcess, WriteBarrier. That is not a problem. The problem is the proliferation of pre/post doits and custom conditionals to handle the distinct combinatios of Pharo (or gemstone or squeak) releases and Software Package Releases
I think that most of this software management tasks are solvable by a description of "requires" and "provides". And metacello solves it well. As an example let's think of an example like ConfigurationOfPharoWebDeveloperImage (maintained by the image provider). The developer image develops linearly hence no version number in the file. The ConfigurationOfPharoWebDeveloperImage has dependencies to 20 other software projects that are all defined in a ConfigurationOfPharo11Universe (maintained by the community). Let's say it has a dependency on 'Seaside 3.0'. ConfigurationOfPharo11Universe offers 'Seaside 3.0' and has a dependency of 'Seaside 3.0.3' in ConfigurationOfSeaside30 (maintained by the seaside maintainers). ConfigurationOfSeaside30 has a dependency to 'Grease 1.0.3' in ConfigurationOfGrease. So let's asssume finally that ConfigurationOfGrease would have a dependency to 'Pharo 1.1' when run under pharo1.1 or to 'Pharo 1.1 compat package' when run under pharo 1.0 (metacello allows us to do that).
And that is precisely the point. As time goes on, the number of this "conditional" will grow exponentially, lowering the quality of the Configuration and difficulting the maintenance of it. If all of this can be solved by simply copying the current configuration to a new repository on squeaksource when a new Pharo release is out, then better for all, mainly for the maintainer that is the one doing the hard work of maintaing the configuration.
All of these descriptions require and provide anything. And the descriptions are services offered from one group to another taking a certain responsibility. You can always rely on things like "Seaside 3.0" if you trust the people and if not than you use "Seaside 3.0.4rc2a".
What I wanted to say is that there are plenty of situations where you want to cluster software packages together. By copying the files you just double to stuff without being able to tweak.
I don't understand this part too, why woulnd you be able to tweak it? Also, if the ConfigurationOfMagma, for example, is copied to MetaRepoForPharo1.3 (when Pharo 1.3 is out) and it needs ConfigurationOfOSProcess then I copy also ConfigurationOfOSProcess from MetaRepoForPharo1.2 to MetaRepoForPharo1.3 and then all is working correctly again.
Removing the packages from the MetacelloRepository as Stephane suggested would just make them platform dependent. Having less files and clear roles who might change them is something achievable IMHO. Tearing things apart (by copying) lowers sometimes integration effort. Or to say with view from the XML world: "If you want to integrate/cooperate than XML schema is for you If you don't want to do that than use XML namespaces".
I don't get it. :) A final point, the idea is that the end users won't see how things are implemented. The tools will have to be modified to understand this MetacelloRepositories thing. Gofer, GoferProjectLoader and Metacello itself will need to add an indirection when accessing repositories so that they access the correct repository for the image they are running on. With this the user will do Gofer new universe; "Here Gofer points to the Pharo10, Pharo11, etc" package: 'ConfigurationOfMagma'; load; Or better yet: Gofer project load: 'Magma'. "using GoferProjectLoader modified to understand MetacelloRepositories" and when doing a: ConfigurationOfXXX project latestVersion the references to required ConfigurationOfXXX dependencies will need to be taken from the same repository where the ConfigurationOfXXX was got. This way the "Universe" analogy of self-contained group of packages known to work in a given release is fulfilled. Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
Removing the packages from the MetacelloRepository as Stephane suggested would just make them platform dependent.
I missed your point. I did not say to remve the package form metacello but to copy them so that we do not depend on a server that suddenly disappear from earth. Now let us give a try and learn.
On 06.08.2010, at 23:16, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Removing the packages from the MetacelloRepository as Stephane suggested would just make them platform dependent.
I missed your point. I did not say to remve the package form metacello but to copy them so that we do not depend on a server that suddenly disappear from earth.
Ah, ok, I got it somewhat different.
Now let us give a try and learn.
Yep, time will tell anyway. Norbert
Javier, I agree with Stef, that duplication isn't an issue - the duplicated bits are static. An individual developer has many routes for building/configuring an application that runs on multiple versions/platforms, but the idea of "metacello universes" is aimed at helping _users_ figure out what configurations are "known to work in a particular version." The repository per release idea has very few moving parts, can be done now, and addresses the main problem, so it should be done. On the other hand, we shouldn't stop looking for better ways to "skin the cat":) Dale Javier Pimás wrote:
Maybe I saying nonsense, if that is the case just ignore me but... why have many packages that do almost exactly the same? Aren't you going to get a lot of repeated code lying around in different packages? ie. I think most packages have almost exactly the same baselines for pharo1.x. Maybe it's possible to call the methods baselineXXForPharoXX and let them stay in the same class and package? Or maybe adding other pragma to specify which pharo version each baseline/version describes. I'm sure there could be other solutions. That way you'd have all the configurations in the same place and also reuse code if needed instead of duplicating it.
Regards, Javier.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
Miguel,
I think that this kind of approach makes lots of sense ... I've toyed with the idea of a "white list" of configuration versions, but someone would have to be responsible for maintaining the "white list" and the users would have to responsible for using the "white list" ...
A repository per version is very simple and gives the maintainer flexibility in managing releases.
Dale
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez wrote:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 19:52 +0400, Andrey Larionov escribió:> Why there should be repository per release? As i know MetacelloConfiguration already contains information about compatible Pharo versions.
Because is cleaner and as the releases of Pharo diverge a lot more, the code to install package becomes full of conditionals to handle the distinct issues with each pharo release. For example, Magma. Magma 1.1r1 worked good in any pharo 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. But Magma 1.1r2 doesn't work anymore on Pharo1.0 because Pharo 1.0 doesn't have the classes DirectoryEntryDirectory and DirectoryEntryFile that are used by the new magma version. So I had to modify the configuration with conditionals an several variations of preDoits and postDoits and test what version image is ConfigurationOfMagma is being ran. After a couple of hours I gave up.
The correct solution is to have a specific ConfigurationOfMagma for each released pharo version. This have benefits also: - It permits the unstable repository to heavily update the ConfigurationOfXXX without disturbing or broke the stable ones. - It permits the ConfigurationOfXXX code to remain clean, without a conditionals for every posible combination of release image version and package to be installed version - It permits the maintainer of a ConfigurationOfXXX to decide when to stop supporting old version of a certain package by deleting the old versionXX: methods of the ConfigurationOfXXX in the newer pharo releases. Not always is good to be able to install each and every version of a package in the newest release of pharo (maybe even old versions won't work in the new releases, like the menu registration issue or classes that doesn't belong to the core image) - It permits to issue maintenance ConfigurationOfXXX releases for a stable or "old-stable" image releases, without altering the configurationOfXXX in other repositories Cheers
2010/8/4 Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez <miguel.coba@gmail.com <mailto:miguel.coba@gmail.com>>:
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 11:46 +0200, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Hi Miguel,
hey, nice! If we follow this convention then it is easy to implement a universe browser that selects the correct universe repo and displays all loadable versions. Loading stuff should just be a few clicks away - I personally hate all this MC/Gofer typing ...
Attached is a quick/simple implementation of such a browser:
Mann, Sie sind über schnell!
I tested it in PharoCore 1.0 and worked after a few changes, but the interface is cool. +1 to aim it be the default universe browser in 1.2. Simple, to the point. In Pharo 1.0 I had:
- Open it with Universe open (doesn't register on menu because of the lacking pragmas) - UniverseBrowser pharoUniverse returns PharoCore1.0 instead of Pharo10 to build the universe name. This could be changed in two ways: - Add a system property that states the image repository: SystemVersion current universeName "Returns Pharo10 for image releases 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.5, etc) - Use the equivalent method in the gofer package I uploaded to PharoInbox (if it is approved, so there is only a unique source for converting image version string to universe names)
Other than that, I like the browser.
- file in the attached changeset (I tried in Pharo 1.2) - open via World menu -> "Universe Browser" - select the configuration you want and from the context menu choose -- "Load configuration" -> only the config is loaded -- "Load configuration and latest version" -> the config and lates version is loaded
Have fun! I used Pharo 1.2 - should work in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 too (havent tested).
Bye T. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr <mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Cheers
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr <mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr <mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr <mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires
participants (7)
-
Andrey Larionov -
Dale Henrichs -
Javier Pimás -
Miguel Enrique Cobá MartÃnez -
Norbert Hartl -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Torsten Bergmann