February 2017 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Dale Henrichs

On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter UhnÃ¡k wrote: > > I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. > > Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just > specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it > is pulled from a central repository. > So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a > similar fashion. You are correct that the MetaRepo could accomplish this using a ConfigurationOf (the current scheme basically does follow this model), but this is a bit of a hack .. A better solution is to use a "project specification object" --- many other languages use their own flavor of "project specification object" to define the versions. Having project specification objects means that a whole host of project meta data can be included in the object as first class objects without having to hack around with adding methods (by convention) to a ConfigurationOf > > > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository > of project specification objects > > That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf > separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a > central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of > configuration. I don't agree that this would be needlessly complex ... the implementation I use with tODE leverages gh-pages on github and STON ... having first class objects for project specifications, means that tools can be built to work directly with these objects, instead of loading a ConfigurationOf and hoping that the expected meta data is there ... Dale

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Dale Henrichs

On 02/12/2017 08:40 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dale Henrichs > <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com > <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: > > Peter, > > <wishful thinking> > > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a > repository of project specification objects (like this [1]). Each > project specification would contain the meta data for a project > (like this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is > almost always out-of-date. > > ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been > obsolete for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. > > > Does BaselineOf work with Monticello? Technically, yes (bleeding edge), but practically no. That doesn't change the fact that ConfigurationOf should be phased out ... There are so many things wrong with the way that ConfigurationOf works: manual editing required on every package commit, editable version data that should be immutable, no good branching model, no project-level version comparison, etc. 5 years ago,I was seriously looking at solving the problems with ConfigurationOf. I happened to be looking at git for inspiration (mainly the branching model), but was not really looking forward to the amount of work that was going to be involved. Fortunately right about that time Otto Behrens introduced FileTree. Being able to leverage a fully featured version control system to manage Smalltalk code in FileTree, meant that instead trying to put effort into fixing ConfigurationOf, I was able to greatly simplify ConfigurationOf with BaselineOf ... Project specification objects would support both ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf projects ... the current model of only supporting ConfigurationOf projects with a MetaRepo means that BaselineOf projects are not really properly supported.... Dale

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Peter Uhnak

> I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a > Configuration? > I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. Git takes care of the versioning, so the Baseline is really just a baseline, like it would be in a ConfigurationOf.

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Ben Coman

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. > > Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify > name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled > from a central repository. > So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar > fashion. > > > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of > project specification objects > > That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf > separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central > repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration. > > > > Does BaselineOf work with Monticello? > > I thought it was only for use with git. > > Monticello or Metacello? > I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a Configuration? I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. cheers -ben > You can download/install projects just fine (and also depend on other > baselines from your baselines or configurations) > > Metacello new > baseline: 'FileDialog'; > repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository'; > load. > > Also BaselineOf is just a subclass of ConfigurationOf. > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Dale Henrichs < > dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > >> Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :) >> >> >> >> On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs < >>> dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >>> >>> Peter, >>>> >>>> <wishful thinking> >>>> >>>> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of >>>> project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification >>>> would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy >>>> of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date. >>>> >>> >>> Yes we are working on it. >>> Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention. >>> >>>> >>>> ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete >>>> for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. >>>> >>>> If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, >>>> then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the unit >>>> tests are passing (travis-ci). >>>> >>> >>> I want more than just the tests but this is a start. >>> >>>> >>>> </wishful thinking> >>>> >>> >>> We will arrive there. Because I want it too. >>> Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that >>> guille put on it. >>> >>> >>>> Dale >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages >>>> [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seas >>>> ide3.ston >>>> On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead >>>>> directly from the source? >>>>> >>>>> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do >>>>> it right now? >>>>> >>>>> E.g. >>>>> >>>>> spec >>>>> project: 'Magritte' >>>>> with: [ spec >>>>> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >>>>> versionString: #stable; >>>>> repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Ph >>>>> aro/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. >>>>> >>>>> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> pros: >>>>> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms >>>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>>>> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) >>>>> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've >>>>> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location >>>>> -_-) >>>>> >>>>> cons: >>>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>>>> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] GitFileTree in Pharo 5

by Pierce Ng

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:56:55AM -0300, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > OSSubprocess has a problem which hangs the VM on Linux with an specific > flavor of the VM (the default one). > > You can try with the VM form here: > > https://dl.bintray.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm/pharo-linux-i386threaded-2016… Hi Mariano, I believe I've always been using the itimer VM because that's the default download. Anyhow, I cloned the opensmalltalk-vm repository and built the itimer and this VM. Tested each VM with a fresh 50768 image and in both cases GitFileTree loaded cleanly using snippet by Cyril. Pierce

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] About asSymbol message , some questions in my mind

by lb

Just To You, :-) Symbol , a sign with some meaning in nature language. eg, #% = percent, #$ = dollar. but 2. '$%%&' asSymbol >>>> no meaning symbol as a message should have his meaning. defined in its method. a message should let programmer know what to do. I come from China , My English is poor. Cheers. Bing å¨ 2017-02-13 07:26:05ï¼"john pfersich" <jpfersich(a)gmail.com> åéï¼ BUT There are not compliant below 1. ' ' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 2. '$%%&' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 3. 'sign' asSymbol = 'sign ' asSymbol >>> false because of space. 3. ' one two three ' asSymbol >>> I think It should become three symbols = #one, #two, #three I don't know what you mean by "no meaning', they're symbols. Try this in a Playground, it works in Pharo 5" | oc sym filtered| oc := ' one two three $%%&' splitOn: ' '. sym := OrderedCollection new. oc do: [:each | sym add: each asSymbol]. filtered := OrderedCollection new. filtered := sym select: [ :each | each ~= #'' ]. Transcript show: sym printString; cr. Transcript show: filtered printString; cr. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:56 PM, lb <liangbing64(a)126.com> wrote: Hi, I know Symbol is subclass of String. Any string object can become symbol object by sending 'asSymbol' message.. I think symbol must has its meaning in comon use, so the symbol should be composed of alphabet or number âwithout spaceâ. BUT There are not compliant below 1. ' ' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 2. '$%%&' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 3. 'sign' asSymbol = 'sign ' asSymbol >>> false because of space. 3. ' one two three ' asSymbol >>> I think It should become three symbols = #one, #two, #three Mybe my understanding is wrong. Bing Liang

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] getting real changes from RB refactoring

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 6:33 PM, stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr> wrote: > Hi peter > > > is there some filter that will reject RB changes that actually do not do >> anything? I.e. applying them would have no effect (same method code, class, >> inst var exists, ...). >> > > I do not know. > Do you have an example of when such changes are created? Well, I generate the changes with this https://github.com/peteruhnak/xml-magritte-generator So when I want to regenerate the code, I want to see just the things that will be actually changed.

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled from a central repository. So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar fashion. > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration. > Does BaselineOf work with Monticello? > I thought it was only for use with git. Monticello or Metacello? You can download/install projects just fine (and also depend on other baselines from your baselines or configurations) Metacello new baseline: 'FileDialog'; repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository'; load. Also BaselineOf is just a subclass of ConfigurationOf. On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :) > > > > On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs < >> dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >> >> Peter, >>> >>> <wishful thinking> >>> >>> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of >>> project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification >>> would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy >>> of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date. >>> >> >> Yes we are working on it. >> Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention. >> >>> >>> ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete for >>> 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. >>> >>> If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, >>> then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the unit >>> tests are passing (travis-ci). >>> >> >> I want more than just the tests but this is a start. >> >>> >>> </wishful thinking> >>> >> >> We will arrive there. Because I want it too. >> Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that >> guille put on it. >> >> >>> Dale >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages >>> [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seas >>> ide3.ston >>> On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead >>>> directly from the source? >>>> >>>> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do >>>> it right now? >>>> >>>> E.g. >>>> >>>> spec >>>> project: 'Magritte' >>>> with: [ spec >>>> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >>>> versionString: #stable; >>>> repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Ph >>>> aro/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. >>>> >>>> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' >>>> >>>> >>>> pros: >>>> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms >>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>>> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) >>>> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've >>>> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location >>>> -_-) >>>> >>>> cons: >>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>>> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo

by Dale Henrichs

Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :) On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs > <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> <wishful thinking> >> >> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository >> of project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project >> specification would contain the meta data for a project (like >> this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always >> out-of-date. > > Yes we are working on it. > Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention. >> >> ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete >> for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. >> >> If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, >> then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until >> the unit tests are passing (travis-ci). > > I want more than just the tests but this is a start. >> >> </wishful thinking> > > We will arrive there. Because I want it too. > Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that > guille put on it. > >> >> Dale >> >> [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages >> [2] >> https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside3.ston >> On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead >>> directly from the source? >>> >>> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to >>> do it right now? >>> >>> E.g. >>> >>> spec >>> project: 'Magritte' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> repository: >>> 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. >>> >>> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' >>> >>> >>> pros: >>> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms >>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) >>> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've >>> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom >>> location -_-) >>> >>> cons: >>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 13, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] About asSymbol message , some questions in my mind

by john pfersich

BUT There are not compliant below 1. ' ' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 2. '$%%&' asSymbol >>>> no meaning 3. 'sign' asSymbol = 'sign ' asSymbol >>> false because of space. 3. ' one two three ' asSymbol >>> I think It should become three symbols = #one, #two, #three I don't know what you mean by "no meaning', they're symbols. Try this in a Playground, it works in Pharo 5" | oc sym filtered| oc := ' one two three $%%&' splitOn: ' '. sym := OrderedCollection new. oc do: [:each | sym add: each asSymbol]. filtered := OrderedCollection new. filtered := sym select: [ :each | each ~= #'' ]. Transcript show: sym printString; cr. Transcript show: filtered printString; cr. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:56 PM, lb <liangbing64(a)126.com> wrote: > Hi, > I know Symbol is subclass of String. > Any string object can become symbol object by sending 'asSymbol' message.. > I think symbol must has its meaning in comon use, so the symbol should be > composed of alphabet or number âwithout spaceâ. > > BUT There are not compliant below > 1. ' ' asSymbol >>>> no meaning > 2. '$%%&' asSymbol >>>> no meaning > 3. 'sign' asSymbol = 'sign ' asSymbol >>> false because of space. > 3. ' one two three ' asSymbol >>> I think It should > become three symbols = #one, #two, #three > > > Mybe my understanding is wrong. > > Bing Liang > > >

Feb. 12, 2017