[Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package. As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration. What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this? If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users. Thanks. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Cross-fork-Metacello-configurations-tp2226383p2226383.... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:) I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:) It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves... Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
May be you should say that to squeakers.... since they are the most cogent apparently :) Ste
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
On 5/21/10, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
Yes, ConfigurationOfABC should remain as is. A configuration of a package is one thing and a managed list of configurations is something on a next level.
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
Interesting idea. It seems to me that the only thing which needs to be done is to remove instance variable 'project' and class 'LastVersionLoad' from ConfigurationOfABC and then move ConfigurationOfABC to be a subclass of MetacelloConfiguration
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Yes, indeed. Great work that you have started, Dale. I realise this a bit late but seemingly not too late :-)
But, but... One thing that I really don't understand is this: Squeak people hasn't used the current Metacello "use-case". Squeak people without use it and see if really has problems (nothing that can't be solved when it appears) Squeak people proposed a new way to use Metacello, completly different than the one is being used Squeak arguments were about some potential problems with having configurations outside the image Squeak arguments were abouth the potential advantages of having a browser that browses locally (but as Mariano said, it must be updated from net before having the very last package tested to work available in the browser) instead of going to the network for the list. So, this, hey look what I found, they use it this way, but I think that we should use it that other way, no matter if it is really a problem to use it the way the other people use it really upsets me. Heck, Pharo even build the released dev images with Metacello. That is a "real" world usage and not words. El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 16:17 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
Miguel, It sounds like a defensive attitude. What good can emerge from sharing such mood? You don't deliver any technical argumentation, but "I think it's wrong" and "it upsets me". I'm sure you have more rational reasons to dislike squeak usage, that would be interesting to expose. Squeak people are not going to rape your wife nor kill your children. Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons Nicolas 2010/5/22 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
But, but...
One thing that I really don't understand is this:
Squeak people hasn't used the current Metacello "use-case". Squeak people without use it and see if really has problems (nothing that can't be solved when it appears) Squeak people proposed a new way to use Metacello, completly different than the one is being used Squeak arguments were about some potential problems with having configurations outside the image Squeak arguments were abouth the potential advantages of having a browser that browses locally (but as Mariano said, it must be updated from net before having the very last package tested to work available in the browser) instead of going to the network for the list.
So, this, hey look what I found, they use it this way, but I think that we should use it that other way, no matter if it is really a problem  to use it the way the other people use it really upsets me.
Heck, Pharo even build the released dev images with Metacello. That is a "real" world usage and not words.
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 16:17 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). Â And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
El dom, 23-05-2010 a las 09:39 +0200, Nicolas Cellier escribió:
Miguel, It sounds like a defensive attitude. What good can emerge from sharing such mood? You don't deliver any technical argumentation, but "I think it's wrong" and "it upsets me". I'm sure you have more rational reasons to dislike squeak usage, that would be interesting to expose.
I don't dislike Squeak usage but changing a emerging technology that is being used in a given way and that appears to be working (I've done the Magma configuration and I tested it worked on Squeak and Pharo) but this new Squeak usage of Metacello really discourages to try to keep the Magma for other distros than Pharo. It really is a gratuitous change and I don't really have the time to sync two ways to use the same technology.
Squeak people are not going to rape your wife nor kill your children.
Again, is not the people, is the gratuitous change for a perceived problem with Metacello current usage.
Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons
No sé que significa pero supongo que es relevante en esta discusión. Cheers
Nicolas
2010/5/22 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
But, but...
One thing that I really don't understand is this:
Squeak people hasn't used the current Metacello "use-case". Squeak people without use it and see if really has problems (nothing that can't be solved when it appears) Squeak people proposed a new way to use Metacello, completly different than the one is being used Squeak arguments were about some potential problems with having configurations outside the image Squeak arguments were abouth the potential advantages of having a browser that browses locally (but as Mariano said, it must be updated from net before having the very last package tested to work available in the browser) instead of going to the network for the list.
So, this, hey look what I found, they use it this way, but I think that we should use it that other way, no matter if it is really a problem to use it the way the other people use it really upsets me.
Heck, Pharo even build the released dev images with Metacello. That is a "real" world usage and not words.
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 16:17 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
2010/5/23 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
El dom, 23-05-2010 a las 09:39 +0200, Nicolas Cellier escribió:
Miguel, It sounds like a defensive attitude. What good can emerge from sharing such mood? You don't deliver any technical argumentation, but "I think it's wrong" and "it upsets me". I'm sure you have more rational reasons to dislike squeak usage, that would be interesting to expose.
I don't dislike Squeak usage but changing a emerging technology that is being used in a given way and that appears to be working (I've done the Magma configuration and I tested it worked on Squeak and Pharo) but this new Squeak usage of Metacello really discourages to try to keep the Magma for other distros than Pharo. It really is a gratuitous change and I don't really have the time to sync two ways to use the same technology.
I would say then someone else should do it for Squeak, but that's a good question. How to reuse Pharo configuration in Squeak with minimum effort et vice et versa?
Squeak people are not going to rape your wife nor kill your children.
Again, is not the people, is the gratuitous change for a perceived problem with Metacello current usage.
Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons
No sé que significa pero supongo que es relevante en esta discusión.
Cheers
Absolutely irrelevant! It's extracted from french hymn "la marseillaise", as you may know, a rather beliquous song. That was my a-bit-exagerated-perception of your previous mail ;) Nicolas
Nicolas
2010/5/22 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
But, but...
One thing that I really don't understand is this:
Squeak people hasn't used the current Metacello "use-case". Squeak people without use it and see if really has problems (nothing that can't be solved when it appears) Squeak people proposed a new way to use Metacello, completly different than the one is being used Squeak arguments were about some potential problems with having configurations outside the image Squeak arguments were abouth the potential advantages of having a browser that browses locally (but as Mariano said, it must be updated from net before having the very last package tested to work available in the browser) instead of going to the network for the list.
So, this, hey look what I found, they use it this way, but I think that we should use it that other way, no matter if it is really a problem  to use it the way the other people use it really upsets me.
Heck, Pharo even build the released dev images with Metacello. That is a "real" world usage and not words.
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 16:17 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). Â And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
I don't dislike Squeak usage but changing a emerging technology that is being used in a given way and that appears to be working (I've done the Magma configuration and I tested it worked on Squeak and Pharo) but this new Squeak usage of Metacello really discourages to try to keep the Magma for other distros than Pharo. It really is a gratuitous change and I don't really have the time to sync two ways to use the same technology.
Miguel, I'm not going to defend how the Squeak folks are using Metacello, but I will say that they have a slightly different use case and they are currently exploring the possibilities in support of that use case. For the moment I would take a wait and see attitude, while continuing to maintain your cross-platform configurations. Think of your users...Magma is used on both Squeak and Pharo and a cross -platform configuration _is_ the best way for you to publish the information... In the absolutely worst case scenario (i.e., impossible to load the Magma config because of class name conflicts) it will be possible for your users to unload the "configuration package" and use your config, then reload the "configuration package". Hopefully, the Squeak folks will settle on an approach that is compatible with cross-platform configs without requiring drastic measures... Dale
participants (6)
-
Dale Henrichs -
Hannes Hirzel -
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez -
Nicolas Cellier -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Stéphane Ducasse