[Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options: 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default. 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy. 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala! With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image. I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create. What do you think ? Mariano
El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other. Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image. my 2 cents
What do you think ?
Mariano
_______________________________________________ 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
I am very much in favor or providing ready choice in the browsers and tools. It would also help to have the browswers somehow brand themselves. Conversation here centers on things like O2 vs. OB, but there are at least two O2 browswers (package and system). I am probably most concerned about keeping the standard tool set which does away with the new inspector and might have other favorable side effects. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other. Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image. my 2 cents
What do you think ?
Mariano
_______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu>wrote:
I am very much in favor or providing ready choice in the browsers and tools. It would also help to have the browswers somehow brand themselves. Conversation here centers on things like O2 vs. OB, but there are at least two O2 browswers (package and system).
This is exactly why having both browser is confusing a newcomer. If you cannot choose, you don't confuse :)
I am probably most concerned about keeping the standard tool set which does away with the new inspector and might have other favorable side effects.
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB
El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other.
Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image.
my 2 cents
What do you think ?
Mariano
_______________________________________________ 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
Slogans aside, there are tools that are simply not very good. To assume that what I find least offensive is least offensive to other users, or vice versa, is asking for trouble. Bill ________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Mariano Martinez Peck Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:12 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab@anest.ufl.edu<mailto:bschwab@anest.ufl.edu>> wrote: I am very much in favor or providing ready choice in the browsers and tools. It would also help to have the browswers somehow brand themselves. Conversation here centers on things like O2 vs. OB, but there are at least two O2 browswers (package and system). This is exactly why having both browser is confusing a newcomer. If you cannot choose, you don't confuse :) I am probably most concerned about keeping the standard tool set which does away with the new inspector and might have other favorable side effects. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr> [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr>] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other. Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image. my 2 cents
What do you think ?
Mariano
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr<mailto:Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion. However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again. Cheers, Adrian On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible. For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers. And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want. so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with this solution. As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0. Cheers, Doru On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible.
For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers.
And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want.
so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
May be this is off topic, but when I was working in embedded linux development I have used a cool tool to customize its own linux image before downloading it. It's narcissus from angstrom distribution: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/narcissus/ For me, a Pharo image and a linux distribution are quite similar when talking about packages. With Metacello, Loader and Seaside, may be such a tool to configure your image to download is not a big deal ? So everybody can easily choose between OB, O2 or both, WorkingSet / Algernon, AidaWeb / Seaside, .... Laurent On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with this solution.
As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible.
For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers.
And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want.
so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Today on the squeak-dev list this link was posted, which I hadn't seen. http://builder.seaside.st/ It lets you choose from the web page all the options that you want, then it lets you download a build script or monticello configuration to load all the parts. It seems like building one of these for Pharo dev (or core) might be awesome. Just click the things you want, if some are mutually exclusive the website can show that (radio button rather than checkbox). Then download the base image, and drag your script onto it. Everyone can get what they want, and nobody has to fight about which browser is best. Mike Mike Hales Engineering Manager KnowledgeScape www.kscape.com 2010/1/20 laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com>
May be this is off topic, but when I was working in embedded linux development I have used a cool tool to customize its own linux image before downloading it. It's narcissus from angstrom distribution: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/narcissus/
For me, a Pharo image and a linux distribution are quite similar when talking about packages. With Metacello, Loader and Seaside, may be such a tool to configure your image to download is not a big deal ? So everybody can easily choose between OB, O2 or both, WorkingSet / Algernon, AidaWeb / Seaside, ....
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com>wrote:
I agree with this solution.
As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible.
For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers.
And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want.
so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ 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
2010/1/20 Mike Hales <mike.hales@kscape.com>
Today on the squeak-dev list this link was posted, which I hadn't seen. http://builder.seaside.st/ It lets you choose from the web page all the options that you want, then it lets you download a build script or monticello configuration to load all the parts. It seems like building one of these for Pharo dev (or core) might be awesome. Just click the things you want, if some are mutually exclusive the website can show that (radio button rather than checkbox). Then download the base image, and drag your script onto it. Everyone can get what they want, and nobody has to fight about which browser is best.
This, this will be a cool idea. We even talked about that with Dale so that you can download Metacello scripts. However, this is not also the best solution (from my point of view) to newcomers. They don't know what shout is, or what ocompletion, or RoelTyper, or whatever. We NEED a standard PharoDev image in a first step, that suits standard requirements. After that, we can focus on how to make better each customizations for each persons. Even more, we are going in that direction. Reading the 1hour tutorial of Metacello you will discover how you can very easily create your own script to load what you want. Even more, if there are similar "requirements", I can just create differents groups in ConfigurationOfMetacello, and thus, you only need to evaluate 1 line of code.
Mike
Mike Hales Engineering Manager KnowledgeScape www.kscape.com
2010/1/20 laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com>
May be this is off topic, but when I was working in embedded linux
development I have used a cool tool to customize its own linux image before downloading it. It's narcissus from angstrom distribution: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/narcissus/
For me, a Pharo image and a linux distribution are quite similar when talking about packages. With Metacello, Loader and Seaside, may be such a tool to configure your image to download is not a big deal ? So everybody can easily choose between OB, O2 or both, WorkingSet / Algernon, AidaWeb / Seaside, ....
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com>wrote:
I agree with this solution.
As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible.
For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers.
And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want.
so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
This is the plan. Using Metacello will enable that.
Today on the squeak-dev list this link was posted, which I hadn't seen. http://builder.seaside.st/ It lets you choose from the web page all the options that you want, then it lets you download a build script or monticello configuration to load all the parts. It seems like building one of these for Pharo dev (or core) might be awesome. Just click the things you want, if some are mutually exclusive the website can show that (radio button rather than checkbox). Then download the base image, and drag your script onto it. Everyone can get what they want, and nobody has to fight about which browser is best.
Yes :) Just a meta remark I can tell you that we do not lack vision: - I want to mini kernel bootable without compiler only bytecode and socket - I want a cool mop with first class instance variables - I want to have a cool catalog to build app with - I want more Now this is a question of time and energy and you can all help! Think about closing some issue, sending code with problems... Stef
yes this is the future. Now this is just about shipping the right 1.0 and passing to 1.1 and 1.2 Stef On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:58 PM, laurent laffont wrote:
May be this is off topic, but when I was working in embedded linux development I have used a cool tool to customize its own linux image before downloading it. It's narcissus from angstrom distribution: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/narcissus/
For me, a Pharo image and a linux distribution are quite similar when talking about packages. With Metacello, Loader and Seaside, may be such a tool to configure your image to download is not a big deal ? So everybody can easily choose between OB, O2 or both, WorkingSet / Algernon, AidaWeb / Seaside, ....
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with this solution.
As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0.
Cheers, Doru
On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
2) Install only OB
is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is too high in my opinion.
Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible.
For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and take his own opinion on both browsers.
And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can load whatever they want.
so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to add it again.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options:
1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image.
I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create.
What do you think ?
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ 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
I think that as Pharo evolves as a proposition of a better implementation of Smalltalk, the Pharo community will have to choose one browser as the preferred (not only default) to be supported in the broad sense: documentation, preference to bug fixes, mentioning in the books, videos and other training material, etc. Among other things we shall have reduce the space of choices to avoid the "paradox of choice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Paradox_of_choice problem. my 0.019999... -- Cesar Rabak Em 20/01/2010 14:44, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> escreveu: That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the same image without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes in the image quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest to either use OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why people want to switch between the two dynamically in the same image. We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in these options: 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default. 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy. 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala! With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image. I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can create. What do you think ? Mariano
participants (9)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
csrabak＠bol.com.br -
laurent laffont -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez -
Mike Hales -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba