Can Packages have comments or something explaining its purpose or use?
not yet. we have real packages support since not much time. now we also have the concept of âPackage Manifestâ where you can put comments and other stuff. ⦠but the tools are not yet ready :( Esteban
On 30 Apr 2015, at 14:52, Sergio Fedi <sergio.fedi@gmail.com> wrote:
Can Packages have comments or something explaining its purpose or use?
Thanks :) I'm gonna investigate the Package Manifest On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
not yet. we have real packages support since not much time. now we also have the concept of âPackage Manifestâ where you can put comments and other stuff.
⦠but the tools are not yet ready :(
Esteban
On 30 Apr 2015, at 14:52, Sergio Fedi <sergio.fedi@gmail.com> wrote:
Can Packages have comments or something explaining its purpose or use?
EstebanLM wrote
now we also have the concept of âPackage Manifestâ where you can put comments and other stuff.
Why does RPackage>>#packageManifest (which should just be named #manifest) return an instance of the manifest class, but all metadata is on the class side? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Package-comments-tp4823188p4823415.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 01 May 2015, at 03:27, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
EstebanLM wrote
now we also have the concept of âPackage Manifestâ where you can put comments and other stuff.
Why does RPackage>>#packageManifest (which should just be named #manifest) return an instance of the manifest class, but all metadata is on the class side?
probably a bug :) Esteban
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Package-comments-tp4823188p4823415.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
One question, is someone working this kind of metadata management? Because 1) instead of keeping it in the class, we can keep it in objects. 2) It can be serialized into STON for git versioning and probably it can be stored in some way in Monticello Uko
On 01 May 2015, at 12:07, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01 May 2015, at 03:27, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
EstebanLM wrote
now we also have the concept of âPackage Manifestâ where you can put comments and other stuff.
Why does RPackage>>#packageManifest (which should just be named #manifest) return an instance of the manifest class, but all metadata is on the class side?
probably a bug :)
Esteban
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Package-comments-tp4823188p4823415.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 01 May 2015, at 12:45, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
One question, is someone working this kind of metadata management? Because 1) instead of keeping it in the class, we can keep it in objects. 2) It can be serialized into STON for git versioning and probably it can be stored in some way in Monticello
I donât like in general to have data in methods⦠For Monticello, we really should add file storage. itâs easy -> add ivar to RPackage -> annualise it lazily with an in-Memory filesystem -> on MC save, copy the files into a âresourcesâ subdirectory of the zip file. -> on load, just load the files from the âresourcesâ subdirectory into the in-memory filesystem. -> add a tool to add files to the in memory filesystem. The best here would be to add support to GTInspector to copy files â> DONE. Marcus
participants (5)
-
Esteban Lorenzano -
Marcus Denker -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sergio Fedi -
Yuriy Tymchuk