Hi, Sorry for the slow reaction. Indeed, we would like to encourage the packaging of GT extensions in the same project as the code they extend. So, in this case, GT-InspectorExtensions-XML would be better suited to be in the PharoExtras/XMLParser repository under XML-Parser-GT-InspectorExtensions. Actually, given that most of these extensions are not more complicated than a printOn:, I would even argue that in many cases it would be more suitable to have them in the same package as the class they extend. I know it sounds like bad dependency management, but the GT-Inspector is here to stay (and the API will likely remain compatible in the future), so the risk is minimal and I think in many situations you will this approach more pragmatic. So, Ben: could you push the package as you described (only call it please XML-Parser-GT-InspectorExtensions)? Cheers, Doru On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:28 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi ben
we could update the configurationOfXMLReader. But the right solution is to define a new configuration loading GT-Tools, XMLReader and your extensions. In pharo 40 we could consider that GT-Tools is loaded. Now I think that making the dependencies explicit is important.
So what do you think of... * Updating ConfigurationOfXMLParser to automatically load the extensions for Pharo4. * Moving the package into the XML-Parser repository so it sits next to other compatibility packages like XML-Parser-GemstoneCompatability -- and possibly renaming it something like XML-Parser-GT-Extensions.
The package I maintain with monty is in PharoExtras so I would prefer not to change its location.
I meant moving GT-InspectorExtensions-XML..mcz from Smalltalkhub Moose/GToolkit to Smalltalkhub PharoExtras/XMLParser renamed XML-Parser-GTExtensions..mcz , but that might not suit the GT Team.
Actually in off-list correspondence with monty I learnt of XMLPluggableElementFactory, which seems to suit my need better than my proposed GT extensions for XMLParser. cheers -ben
Stef
I would prefer to qualify the extensions by the tool they refer to: GT-InspectorExtensions-*, GT-SpotterExtensions-* etc.
gtDisplayOn: should be more in the inspector, but probably some were added mostly in the spotter so they ended up in the less optimal package.
okay. good to understand. cheers -ben
Cheers, Doru
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
I happened to need to use and XML Parser for the first time and found inspecting the structure awkward, so I added some GTInspector extensions to XML-Parser. This is uploaded as XML-Parser-BenComan.304 to http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/XMLParser. Could someone who uses XML regularly check if these are reasonable?
Now should these methods be packaged separately somehow, since they are likely not of interest to other Smalltalk flavours?
btw I gave them a protocol of "GT-Extensions" - but I also considered "moldable-tools" and "tools-extensions". If there a preference? This will likely be a common occurrence across the community, so we should try for a consistent convention across the community for such extensions.
btw2, I notice that #gtDisplayOn: implementors are fairly evenly split between [GT-InspectorExtensions-Core] and [GT-SpotterExtensions-Core]. Are they really separated like this in their use?
cheers -ben
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"