Re: [Pharo-project] About XML Support in the 1.2
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general) Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. Laurent On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. Cheers, Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion. Norbert On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO. In MetacelloRepository, the latest version of ConfigurationOfXMLSupport is 1.0.2 (no 1.1.6). Laurent
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
I like to have related things together because they are easier to browse (from the app developer point of view) :). From the user who wants to use several packages, it is not confortable at all, I know... I think MetacelloRepository is being used as: - a bag to put everything we don't know where to put - (in companion to Monticello) a tool to browse every available metacello config. I think 1) is not a good reason to put things there, but sometimes it is useful (or mandatory when we want a config but we don't have access to the repos, hehe). And 2) is remarking our lack of tools for metacello use :). Arghhhhh, I need time :(. I would like to gather forces with someone doing this kind of tool... Guille On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
In MetacelloRepository, the latest version of ConfigurationOfXMLSupport is 1.0.2 (no 1.1.6).
Laurent
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker < marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote: It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent, I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way. Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker < marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files. When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available. I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository. Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository. It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo... Dale On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > >
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations... Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it... On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name
<mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
>>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > >
We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers. So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration. Stef
+1 On 19 Jan 2011, at 16:28, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers. So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration.
Stef
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
+1 Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 20:32, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
+1
On 19 Jan 2011, at 16:28, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers. So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration.
Stef
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
-- www.tudorgirba.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
On 01/19/2011 10:28 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr> <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>>> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
>>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > >
But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just toasted. So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution and I load the tools I need. If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. Or I change and switch to that distribution. So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a publication for inclusion in distribution. Stef
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr> <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>>> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
>>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > >
On 19.01.2011, at 20:54, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just toasted. So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution and I load the tools I need.
If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. Or I change and switch to that distribution.
So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a publication for inclusion in distribution.
If it is not just a copy what else is implied? Norbert
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr> <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>>> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Hi, On 20 Jan 2011, at 10:11, Norbert Hartl wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 20:54, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just toasted. So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution and I load the tools I need.
If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. Or I change and switch to that distribution.
So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a publication for inclusion in distribution.
If it is not just a copy what else is implied?
As Stef mentioned, there are two things to do: - copy the actual packages into a different repository - change the references to Monticello repositories from the Configurations (this should be applied both to packages and to nested configurations) Cheers, Doru
Norbert
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr> <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>>> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com "When people care, great things can happen."
On 20.01.2011, at 10:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
On 20 Jan 2011, at 10:11, Norbert Hartl wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 20:54, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just toasted. So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution and I load the tools I need.
If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. Or I change and switch to that distribution.
So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a publication for inclusion in distribution.
If it is not just a copy what else is implied?
As Stef mentioned, there are two things to do: - copy the actual packages into a different repository - change the references to Monticello repositories from the Configurations (this should be applied both to packages and to nested configurations)
Thanks Doru for explaining. So this makes total sense to me packaging wise but it is a lot of re-doing while integrating. The repositories have to be changed every single time. But I think that there is a task that automatically copies the packages of a version and that metacello will have some solution for the change in repositories. Norbert
Norbert
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com <mailto:dhenrich@vmware.com>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name> <mailto:norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr> <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>>> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
If it is not just a copy what else is implied?
As Stef mentioned, there are two things to do: - copy the actual packages into a different repository - change the references to Monticello repositories from the Configurations (this should be applied both to packages and to nested configurations)
Thanks Doru for explaining. So this makes total sense to me packaging wise but it is a lot of re-doing while integrating. The repositories have to be changed every single time. But I think that there is a task that automatically copies the packages of a version and that metacello will have some solution for the change in repositories.
But metacello has an override for looking package so normally this can be mechanically done. Dale? Stef
On 19.01.2011, at 19:01, Dale Henrichs wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
I understand what you are saying and I partially agree. But it just doesn't feel right and this is easy to show. In this example of ConfigurationOfXMLSupport there was not one caring person like you are that does everything and has on overview. There is a Configuration in MetacelloRepository than it was decided to keep the main Configuration file in XMLSupport repository. Development took place in the XMLSupport repository. In the meantime someone changed the Configuration in MetacelloRepsository probably for integration purposes. Now the Configuration has been copied from XMLSupport and has overwritten the changes that have been made to the existing Configuration. That is what you get if you branch off things. I don't know how to solve this properly because I didn't have time to follow the metacello discussions. But if there is a possibility to specify the stable for pharo 1.1.1 that doesn't change even if the packages evolves I can't see much reason to have a writable version of the Configuration in MetacelloRepository. Norbert
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > >
On 01/19/2011 11:37 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 19:01, Dale Henrichs wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo...
I understand what you are saying and I partially agree. But it just doesn't feel right and this is easy to show. In this example of ConfigurationOfXMLSupport there was not one caring person like you are that does everything and has on overview. There is a Configuration in MetacelloRepository than it was decided to keep the main Configuration file in XMLSupport repository. Development took place in the XMLSupport repository. In the meantime someone changed the Configuration in MetacelloRepsository probably for integration purposes. Now the Configuration has been copied from XMLSupport and has overwritten the changes that have been made to the existing Configuration. That is what you get if you branch off things.
I don't know how to solve this properly because I didn't have time to follow the metacello discussions. But if there is a possibility to specify the stable for pharo 1.1.1 that doesn't change even if the packages evolves I can't see much reason to have a writable version of the Configuration in MetacelloRepository.
Norbert
I understand that there are potential problems using distributed version control, but one of the reasons that I chose to use code for specifying Metacello configurations is thatit made it possible to use Monticello merge facilities to reconcile changes mad in different branches ... This was a breakdown in procedure ... the intent of MetacelloRepository is not to create branches of configurations...if I recall, there was a change in the developers that coincided with the creation of metacello configurations ... I would hope that this case be classed as a learning experience rather than a condemnation of process. I agree that there could be a better way, but I think that the better way involves tools support and until we get the tools we must resort to process ... Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl<norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl<norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote:
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr<mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com<http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com<http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
What we envision if the following: As a developer you put the configurationOf in your project Then if you want your package to be available in the MetaCoolProjectsCatalogBrowser you should publish (special operation which interprets the configuration recursively and copy all the needed packages into the MetaCoolProjectsCatalogRepository of the current version of pharo. So the configuration will be in both your project and the distribution (because MetaCoolProjectsCatalogRepository is a disribution of packages). Now that metacello is available, we should push that because this is the way to go. One distribution per version and conifguration that can be tested automatically by hudson. Stef
---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:37:54 -0800 Norbert Hartl wrote ----
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
I can copy configurations over to MetacelloRepository periodically; it's not too much trouble. Of course, this will result in some redundancy.
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository. ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121 XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6 - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests' All 361 tests green. Laurent Laffont On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote:
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
thanks laurent! On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository.
ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121
XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6 - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Thanks, indeed. Does this mean that the next build will take this into account or must something else get changed as well? Cheers, Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 21:24, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
thanks laurent!
On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository.
ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121
XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6 - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Being happy is a matter of choice."
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, indeed.
Does this mean that the next build will take this into account or must something else get changed as well?
Next build will takes this in account. The problem is that the build fails now. On my machine, while loading AutomaticMethodCategorizer-MarianoMartinez.29 I get the error: PluggableTextMorph(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #stylerStyled: SHTextStylerST80(SHTextStyler)>>style: PluggableTextMorph>>setText: PluggableTextMorph>>on:text:accept:readSelection:menu: PluggableTextMorph class>>on:text:accept:readSelection:menu: Workspace>>embeddedInMorphicWindowLabeled: Workspace(StringHolder)>>openAsMorphLabel: Workspace(StringHolder)>>openLabel: AutomaticMethodCategorizer class>>showFirstInstallationInstructions AutomaticMethodCategorizer class>>initialize MCMethodDefinition>>postloadOver: ..... Laurent
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 21:24, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
thanks laurent!
On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository.
ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121
XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6 - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker < marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
PluggableTextMorph(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #stylerStyled: I've the same problem when I load Moose and/or Petit with the following scripts:
Gofer new squeaksource: 'Moose'; package: 'ConfigurationOfMoose'; load. (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfMoose) perform: #loadDefault. Gofer new renggli: 'petit'; package: 'ConfigurationOfPetitParser'; load. (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfPetitParser) perform: #loadDefault. Cheers Alain Le 19/01/2011 21:56, laurent laffont a écrit :
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com <mailto:tudor.girba@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks, indeed.
Does this mean that the next build will take this into account or must something else get changed as well?
Next build will takes this in account.
The problem is that the build fails now.
On my machine, while loading AutomaticMethodCategorizer-MarianoMartinez.29 I get the error:
PluggableTextMorph(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #stylerStyled:
SHTextStylerST80(SHTextStyler)>>style:
PluggableTextMorph>>setText:
PluggableTextMorph>>on:text:accept:readSelection:menu:
PluggableTextMorph class>>on:text:accept:readSelection:menu:
Workspace>>embeddedInMorphicWindowLabeled:
Workspace(StringHolder)>>openAsMorphLabel:
Workspace(StringHolder)>>openLabel:
AutomaticMethodCategorizer class>>showFirstInstallationInstructions
AutomaticMethodCategorizer class>>initialize
MCMethodDefinition>>postloadOver:
.....
Laurent
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 21:24, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> thanks laurent! > > On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:19 PM, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository. >> >> ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121 >> >> XMLSupport: >> - update to release 1.1.6 >> - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests' >> >> All 361 tests green. >> >> Laurent Laffont >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com <mailto:tudor.girba@gmail.com>> wrote: >> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: >> >>> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >>> >>> Laurent >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> >>>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>>> >>> >>> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >>> (not of XML, but in general) >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>>> >>>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>>> >>>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Fabrizio >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >>>> >>>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >>> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >> >> "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >> you will end up with a messy haircut." >> >> >> > >
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:19:40 -0800 laurent laffont wrote ----
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository.
ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121
XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6 - add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
Note that XMLSupport pulls in some "helper" collection packages: an order-preserving dictionary and a bitmap-based character set, at the moment. The tests for these packages are *not* loaded in automatically.
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
   Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:02:54 -0800 jaayer wrote ----
---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:19:40 -0800 laurent laffont wrote ----
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository.
ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121
XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6
I copied the latest version, 1.1.7, to the repository.
- add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
Note that XMLSupport pulls in some "helper" collection packages: an order-preserving dictionary and a bitmap-based character set, at the moment. The tests for these packages are *not* loaded in automatically.
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
   Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, jaayer <jaayer@zoho.com> wrote:
---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:02:54 -0800 jaayer wrote ----
I copied the latest version, 1.1.7, to the repository.
Should I update it ? (Don't hesitate to update ConfigurationOfPharo :) Laurent
- add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests'
Note that XMLSupport pulls in some "helper" collection packages: an order-preserving dictionary and a bitmap-based character set, at the moment. The tests for these packages are *not* loaded in automatically.
All 361 tests green.
Laurent Laffont
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general)
Marcus
Cheers, Doru
On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2.
The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all.
I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like.
Thanks,
Fabrizio
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
participants (10)
-
Alain Plantec -
Alexandre Bergel -
Dale Henrichs -
Guillermo Polito -
jaayer -
laurent laffont -
Marcus Denker -
Norbert Hartl -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba