+1 Ben On 29 Nov 2013, at 17:25, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote: Sean P. DeNigris wrote

...

I noticed that right now, separate packages within the same project are not collapsed. E.g. if I have MyProject-Core and MyProject-Platform, they will be siblings in the tree, instead of both under MyProject. It seems like it would be more useful to have - MyProject - Core - Platform in the tree

Bump... thoughts?

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726272.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Currently I am working on Hyperion, a vector editor for Athens. Then I will work on Prometheas, on board documentation tool again with Athens. My third tool, if ever reach that far is Cyclops which will target the system browser. Now I am no fan of hierarchy trees. I find them hard to navigate and messy when hierarchy gets too complex. I see two solution on this one a) Sophisticated search facility, we have that already with the finder tool . I feel its time for the finder tool to go and be one with the system browser. b) Tag based browsing. That means attach tags to your classes and methods , make it easy this way to make things belong to groups and most importantly one thing could belong to more than one group. This also means bye bye packages, and instead replaced with infinite level groups, a group can be inside another group which can be inside another group etc. Of course those groups wont "exist" only their tags will "exist". I am also smiling to the Glamour philosophy of having a browser tool that can have multiple ways of viewing your classes. Bottom line is that I will be using existing ideas and I hope also code to push things just tiny bit further. So for me at least smart browsing plus tags plus good search facility can easily replace ugly hierarchy trees and packages with really long names. Just using common logic can take you a long way into improving the tools, the hard part is actually coding all this because it takes time and effort. On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>wrote:

kilon alios wrote

...

I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

I agree in theory, but it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into manageable pieces.

A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all that relevant to a user wanting to understand the system.

From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of the system, I want to see things like: - CodeImport - Collections - Compiler

From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a few dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally less daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two): <http://forum.world.st/file/n4726287/Picture_1.png>

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726287.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

"It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin." that's great to hear, this makes things much easier for me. How to reactivate that plugin ? Also where I can find documentation for the Nautilus plugin system ? I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, if I can just extend Nautilus that would be great. Having this option means I could even start Cyclops now, cause it will take me much less time than I expected. "Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays. Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less. " My plan was to offer tagging for some classes I heavily use but obviously not all. I wanted to allow user to create their own tags even custom ones and sync automatically with other users against a common online tag repository. "Up to you :) Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;))." It was not my intention to offer ONLY a tag system, hierarchy trees are useful too. I see the tag system as another alternative way of viewing classes and methods not as a complete replacement to hierarchy trees.Also the tree hides part of the name but force you to make long package names to use the tree anyway. Am I wrong ? " Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true). " Common logic means exactly what is implied, logic which some people agree on. Obviously nothing is absolute and people have different workflow which I respect and love to hear about them ;) I definitely would not want to force people doing things a single way. Anything can useful. "Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser..." Is it or are you being sarcastic ? It was never my intention to rebuilt a complete system browser, just reskin and extend the existing one. I find the system browser already extremely powerful and fun to use , I just wanted to add my own touches to it. This is why I was considering Glamour . On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr>wrote:

Le 29/11/2013 18:16, kilon alios a écrit :

Currently I am working on Hyperion, a vector editor for Athens. Then I

...

will work on Prometheas, on board documentation tool again with Athens.

My third tool, if ever reach that far is Cyclops which will target the system browser. Now I am no fan of hierarchy trees. I find them hard to navigate and messy when hierarchy gets too complex. I see two solution on this one

a) Sophisticated search facility, we have that already with the finder tool . I feel its time for the finder tool to go and be one with the system browser.

It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin.

b) Tag based browsing. That means attach tags to your classes and

...

methods , make it easy this way to make things belong to groups and most importantly one thing could belong to more than one group. This also means bye bye packages, and instead replaced with infinite level groups, a group can be inside another group which can be inside another group etc. Of course those groups wont "exist" only their tags will "exist".

Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less.

I am also smiling to the Glamour philosophy of having a browser tool

...

that can have multiple ways of viewing your classes. Bottom line is that I will be using existing ideas and I hope also code to push things just tiny bit further.

Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser...

So for me at least smart browsing plus tags plus good search facility

...

can easily replace ugly hierarchy trees and packages with really long names.

Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;)).

Just using common logic can take you a long way into improving the

...

tools, the hard part is actually coding all this because it takes time and effort.

Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true).

...

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote:

kilon alios wrote > I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

I agree in theory, but it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into manageable pieces.

A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all that relevant to a user wanting to understand the system.

>From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of the system, I want to see things like: - CodeImport - Collections - Compiler

>From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a few dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally less daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_ Plus_or_Minus_Two ): <http://forum.world.st/file/n4726287/Picture_1.png>

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726287.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

Links are generated :) Here is the link I guess: http://rmod.lille.inria.fr/web/pier/software/Tools-Improvement/NautilusDocum... There is no newer documentation, but this one is still up t orate (at least concerning the plugin mechanism). It is pretty simple. Have a look at some plugins and you should get it pretty fast :) Ben On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:26, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

ok I found this after some google search -> http://rmod.lille.inria.fr/web/pier?_s=HmL1nFoP1weCzRt7 .

Is there any more recent documentation on Nautilus plugin system or any other way of extending Nautilus ?

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:05 AM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote: "It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin."

that's great to hear, this makes things much easier for me. How to reactivate that plugin ? Also where I can find documentation for the Nautilus plugin system ? I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, if I can just extend Nautilus that would be great. Having this option means I could even start Cyclops now, cause it will take me much less time than I expected.

"Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less. "

My plan was to offer tagging for some classes I heavily use but obviously not all. I wanted to allow user to create their own tags even custom ones and sync automatically with other users against a common online tag repository.

"Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;))."

It was not my intention to offer ONLY a tag system, hierarchy trees are useful too. I see the tag system as another alternative way of viewing classes and methods not as a complete replacement to hierarchy trees.Also the tree hides part of the name but force you to make long package names to use the tree anyway. Am I wrong ?

" Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true). "

Common logic means exactly what is implied, logic which some people agree on. Obviously nothing is absolute and people have different workflow which I respect and love to hear about them ;) I definitely would not want to force people doing things a single way. Anything can useful.

"Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser..."

Is it or are you being sarcastic ? It was never my intention to rebuilt a complete system browser, just reskin and extend the existing one. I find the system browser already extremely powerful and fun to use , I just wanted to add my own touches to it. This is why I was considering Glamour .

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:

Le 29/11/2013 18:16, kilon alios a écrit :

Currently I am working on Hyperion, a vector editor for Athens. Then I will work on Prometheas, on board documentation tool again with Athens.

My third tool, if ever reach that far is Cyclops which will target the system browser. Now I am no fan of hierarchy trees. I find them hard to navigate and messy when hierarchy gets too complex. I see two solution on this one

a) Sophisticated search facility, we have that already with the finder tool . I feel its time for the finder tool to go and be one with the system browser.

It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin.

b) Tag based browsing. That means attach tags to your classes and methods , make it easy this way to make things belong to groups and most importantly one thing could belong to more than one group. This also means bye bye packages, and instead replaced with infinite level groups, a group can be inside another group which can be inside another group etc. Of course those groups wont "exist" only their tags will "exist".

Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less.

I am also smiling to the Glamour philosophy of having a browser tool that can have multiple ways of viewing your classes. Bottom line is that I will be using existing ideas and I hope also code to push things just tiny bit further.

Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser...

So for me at least smart browsing plus tags plus good search facility can easily replace ugly hierarchy trees and packages with really long names.

Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;)).

Just using common logic can take you a long way into improving the tools, the hard part is actually coding all this because it takes time and effort.

Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true).

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote:

kilon alios wrote > I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

I agree in theory, but it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into manageable pieces.

A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all that relevant to a user wanting to understand the system.

>From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of the system, I want to see things like: - CodeImport - Collections - Compiler

>From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a few dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally less daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two ): <http://forum.world.st/file/n4726287/Picture_1.png>

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726287.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

You can have a look here http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenjaminVanRyseghem/Nautilus/ I started (and will resume working on it soon) a Spec based implementation of Nautilus with more extensibility. The idea is also that what you are browsing influence the browser. And Spec is good for that (as you can already see in the inspector) Ben On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:05, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

"It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin."

that's great to hear, this makes things much easier for me. How to reactivate that plugin ? Also where I can find documentation for the Nautilus plugin system ? I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, if I can just extend Nautilus that would be great. Having this option means I could even start Cyclops now, cause it will take me much less time than I expected.

"Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less. "

My plan was to offer tagging for some classes I heavily use but obviously not all. I wanted to allow user to create their own tags even custom ones and sync automatically with other users against a common online tag repository.

"Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;))."

It was not my intention to offer ONLY a tag system, hierarchy trees are useful too. I see the tag system as another alternative way of viewing classes and methods not as a complete replacement to hierarchy trees.Also the tree hides part of the name but force you to make long package names to use the tree anyway. Am I wrong ?

" Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true). "

Common logic means exactly what is implied, logic which some people agree on. Obviously nothing is absolute and people have different workflow which I respect and love to hear about them ;) I definitely would not want to force people doing things a single way. Anything can useful.

"Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser..."

Is it or are you being sarcastic ? It was never my intention to rebuilt a complete system browser, just reskin and extend the existing one. I find the system browser already extremely powerful and fun to use , I just wanted to add my own touches to it. This is why I was considering Glamour .

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:

Le 29/11/2013 18:16, kilon alios a écrit :

Currently I am working on Hyperion, a vector editor for Athens. Then I will work on Prometheas, on board documentation tool again with Athens.

My third tool, if ever reach that far is Cyclops which will target the system browser. Now I am no fan of hierarchy trees. I find them hard to navigate and messy when hierarchy gets too complex. I see two solution on this one

a) Sophisticated search facility, we have that already with the finder tool . I feel its time for the finder tool to go and be one with the system browser.

It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin.

b) Tag based browsing. That means attach tags to your classes and methods , make it easy this way to make things belong to groups and most importantly one thing could belong to more than one group. This also means bye bye packages, and instead replaced with infinite level groups, a group can be inside another group which can be inside another group etc. Of course those groups wont "exist" only their tags will "exist".

Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less.

I am also smiling to the Glamour philosophy of having a browser tool that can have multiple ways of viewing your classes. Bottom line is that I will be using existing ideas and I hope also code to push things just tiny bit further.

Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser...

So for me at least smart browsing plus tags plus good search facility can easily replace ugly hierarchy trees and packages with really long names.

Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;)).

Just using common logic can take you a long way into improving the tools, the hard part is actually coding all this because it takes time and effort.

Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true).

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote:

kilon alios wrote > I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

I agree in theory, but it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into manageable pieces.

A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all that relevant to a user wanting to understand the system.

>From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of the system, I want to see things like: - CodeImport - Collections - Compiler

>From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a few dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally less daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two ): <http://forum.world.st/file/n4726287/Picture_1.png>

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726287.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

Goubier thanks for the information, looks like it is as I assumed it is. Its a big motivation to know that there is so much modularity in the code. Its important that we have code that is easy to extend I think, this way we can try new ideas and keep what we like and throw away what we dont without worrying about the cost in development time. By the way I forgot to say that I love the tree feature, definitely makes browsing packages much more manageable. I am also very excited that now we have a search bar for packages. Things definitely improve. thanks Benjamin I will have a look. Yes the plugin system looks very simple, I don't think will cause me any big problem. Is there a roadmap for Nautilus ? or is it "add whatever you want as long as is useful" approach ? I have to say that at times it makes me wonder. Pharo is a closed system, pharo code is suppose to run inside the pharo ide. So if its a closed system why we need case sensitivity and thinking hard about class and function names ? Why cant we choose many different names for each class and method and let the system choose the right class and method for us. I am also thinking namespaces, namespaces in language level are essential but at IDE level can be extremely useful as well. Lets say you dont like the names used for some classes and methods. Why go through the tedious process of subclassing and creating your own methods that call superclass methods just so you have better names for those methods. Just go in and add new names for those methods, while they keep their old ones. Name clashing ? no problemo, use tags as identifiers that will help you separate methods with same names. For me pharo could have an extremely flexible naming system. No need for case sensitivity , no fear of names clashing. I guess that is what you Goubier were referring to as "scoped" browsing. Tags , namespaces, flexible searching via code completion could make it easy to use the right message even for a coder that does not know the name of the message or does not even know what kind of message he wants in his code. We could even abstract the whole process of coding, starting with ideas in form of DSL that gets transformed into pharo code in the process. This DSL will be a "bare bones" pharo code capable of mapping to ideas, ideal for brainstorming without the need to test code and worry about syntax etc. Later on that DSL would be able to change to pharo code and be as specific as needed to be proper code, generate its own tests etc. These are some random ideas I have, more like brainstorming. But it does make me wonder because I feel that pharo can be so much more flexible than what an average language because the IDE is integrated and something we take for granted. So I think we could push things much further than anyone else. If all that sound crazy to you, its ok, I just love to brainstorm , I dont take every idea I have very seriously nor I am saying I will put these ideas to code. But I would like to know what you think about the direction pharo will be going on this matters. Namespaces for example is something we will need sooner or later because pharo will get only bigger and more complex. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Roberto Minelli <roberto.minelli@usi.ch>wrote:

...

what you are browsing influence the browser.

Ben!! We should definitely sync on that!

On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Benjamin < benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:

...

You can have a look here http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenjaminVanRyseghem/Nautilus/

I started (and will resume working on it soon) a Spec based implementation of Nautilus with more extensibility. The idea is also that what you are browsing influence the browser. And Spec is good for that (as you can already see in the inspector)

Ben

On 02 Dec 2013, at 10:05, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:

...

"It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin."

that's great to hear, this makes things much easier for me. How to reactivate that plugin ? Also where I can find documentation for the Nautilus plugin system ? I have no intention of reinventing the wheel, if I can just extend Nautilus that would be great. Having this option means I could even start Cyclops now, cause it will take me much less time than I expected.

"Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less. "

My plan was to offer tagging for some classes I heavily use but obviously not all. I wanted to allow user to create their own tags even custom ones and sync automatically with other users against a common online tag repository.

"Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;))."

It was not my intention to offer ONLY a tag system, hierarchy trees are useful too. I see the tag system as another alternative way of viewing classes and methods not as a complete replacement to hierarchy trees.Also the tree hides part of the name but force you to make long package names to use the tree anyway. Am I wrong ?

" Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true). "

Common logic means exactly what is implied, logic which some people agree on. Obviously nothing is absolute and people have different workflow which I respect and love to hear about them ;) I definitely would not want to force people doing things a single way. Anything can useful.

"Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser..."

Is it or are you being sarcastic ? It was never my intention to rebuilt a complete system browser, just reskin and extend the existing one. I find the system browser already extremely powerful and fun to use , I just wanted to add my own touches to it. This is why I was considering Glamour .

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Goubier Thierry < thierry.goubier@cea.fr> wrote:

Le 29/11/2013 18:16, kilon alios a écrit :

Currently I am working on Hyperion, a vector editor for Athens. Then I will work on Prometheas, on board documentation tool again with Athens.

My third tool, if ever reach that far is Cyclops which will target the system browser. Now I am no fan of hierarchy trees. I find them hard to navigate and messy when hierarchy gets too complex. I see two solution on this one

a) Sophisticated search facility, we have that already with the finder tool . I feel its time for the finder tool to go and be one with the system browser.

It's done for me (with the added fact that you want to return the search results inside the system browser itself: done for me too). For Nautilus, there is a need to reactivate the Finder plugin.

b) Tag based browsing. That means attach tags to your classes and methods , make it easy this way to make things belong to groups and most importantly one thing could belong to more than one group. This also means bye bye packages, and instead replaced with infinite level groups, a group can be inside another group which can be inside another group etc. Of course those groups wont "exist" only their tags will "exist".

Takes ages to tag correctly a system as large as Pharo nowadays.

Such a graph can also makes things very complex at times. You may want to look into dynamic tagging... which brings you to scoped browsing, more or less.

I am also smiling to the Glamour philosophy of having a browser tool that can have multiple ways of viewing your classes. Bottom line is that I will be using existing ideas and I hope also code to push things just tiny bit further.

Do it, do it! As I experienced myself, it's fairly easy to rebuilt a complete system browser...

So for me at least smart browsing plus tags plus good search facility can easily replace ugly hierarchy trees and packages with really long names.

Up to you :)

Me, I have a fairly good spatial memory, so a tree helps me because I can remember where things are (and the tree also shorten long package names ;)).

Just using common logic can take you a long way into improving the tools, the hard part is actually coding all this because it takes time and effort.

Beware: there is no common logic in that (you're a specific case, I'd be very unhappy with your GUI as far as I can see, and the reverse is also true).

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < sean@clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote:

kilon alios wrote > I dont see much room for thought, this looks to me like ideal behavior.

I agree in theory, but it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into manageable pieces.

A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all that relevant to a user wanting to understand the system.

>From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of the system, I want to see things like: - CodeImport - Collections - Compiler

>From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a few dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally less daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

...

): <http://forum.world.st/file/n4726287/Picture_1.png>

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Nautilus-Tree-tp4723819p4726287.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

no its not , this blog post is about extending existing classes with new methods that are stored to other packages instead of creating subclasses. My point is about offering multiple names (not just one) to existing methods and classes, plus tags to further identify the methods so it is much easier to find the method you want or make your code more readable. My approach does not generate new methods, it does not touch existing objects , nor make the system more complicated. I see it more like a database to help you find things. But thanks for the link anyway , now I know how to make extension classes. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM, <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

kilon alios wrote:

...

Lets say you dont like the names used for some classes and methods. Why go through the tedious process of subclassing and creating your own methods that call superclass methods just so you have better names for those methods. Just go in and add new names for those methods, while they keep their old ones. Name clashing ? no problemo, use tags as identifiers that will help you separate methods with same names.

Sounds a bit (but not quite) like package "extensions" per the top half of [1]. [1] http://seandenigris.com/blog/?p=1015

cheers -ben

I do not. Scoped browsing is better for me. Search beats Prem a Fe organization. Ask Google. Search is like addition for them Phil On Friday, November 29, 2013, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

On Nov 29, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com<javascript:;>> wrote:

...

Sean P. DeNigris wrote

...

I noticed that right now, separate packages within the same project are not collapsed. E.g. if I have MyProject-Core and MyProject-Platform, they will be siblings in the tree, instead of both under MyProject. It seems like it would be more useful to have - MyProject - Core - Platform in the tree

Bump... thoughts?

I do not care and i'm not sure that I want to have three levels all the time project package tags/categories

especially since project do not exist.

For now just what we have but fully working would be good.

-- --- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail:phil@highoctane.be | Web: http://philippeback.eu Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium Pharo Consortium Member - http://consortium.pharo.org/ Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast - http://spamcast.libsyn.com Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller