[ANN] Iceberg 0.6 released
Locked
12
12
 
|
I will release 0.6.1 with that fix and all problems that arise this week end ;) Esteban |
|
|
In reply to this post by CyrilFerlicot
yeah, that’s the reason… we use STON to store package/class/method metadata. And STON uses curly braces :S not a big fan either, but at a point I had to make the thing work :) Esteban
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
We will support changes when the subjacent model changes. Just cosmetic changes are a no go for me, because that’s always arguably. For example, is been months that I’m telling you that protocols and tags are not the same, even if mechanically they behave the same :) So, tonel will support “protocol” (and “protocols”) instead category (when MCMethodDefinition changes). But for sure it will not support “tag” or “tags” :P It will support slots too… just when MC metamodel supports it. Class extensions are there: Object.extension.class, for example. Now, Tonel format is thought to be flexible because we intend to use it to replace file tree and file tree *is* flexible. Using STON definitions allows us to quickly adapt at the only price of being backward compatible a reasonable amount of time. So, it will adapt… but as I said, it will adapt with real system changes. Esteban
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
we will use git blame, probably. or we will use log from class then take definitions and trace method changes. what is easier to implement (right now, I think is the 2nd, what looks easier… ) Esteban ps: btw, 2nd way is how plain Monticello supports method history too.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
> On 7 Oct 2017, at 10:10, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Yes it would be good that class description do not use category else > we will never be able to clean. but as I said to Denis, adapting tonel would be easy, but it would be a cosmetic change when what we actually need is to adapt the structure. Right now Ring2 supports this, but Monticello metadata still doesn’t. And I prefer to do the real fix, not just the cosmetic one… for me putting a line like this: TonelWriter >> methodDefinitionOf: aMethodDefinition ^ self toSTON: (OrderedDictionary new at: #protocol put: aMethodDefinition category; yourself) would be a smell, and pointless. but: methodDefinitionOf: aMethodDefinition ^ self toSTON: (OrderedDictionary new at: #protocol put: aMethodDefinition protocol; yourself) looks a lot better :) Esteban > > Denis multiple tags for methods. when we will stop to add new features > and stabilise what we have? > > Yes I'm not in a good mood because I see that I will have to migrate > all calypso in the future to brick. > > Stef > > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Stephane Ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Tim >> >> we talk about this format of methods year ago and we will like it and >> we will not discuss it anymore. >> For the record a method is a named block so it fits and we do not have >> to have {} for method delimiters. >> >> Stef >> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Gosh - It actually work quite well to be able to easily browse code online >>> in a more traditional format of seeing an entire class. Hopefully this leads >>> to us being able to share solutions to common language agnostic problems. >>> >>> One small observation - I quickly grok’d the use of class { …. } (with the >>> curly braces) - but given that smalltalk methods often have lots of [ ] >>> (square braces in them), I was a bit surprised to see that method >>> declarations in tonal don’t use { … } (curly braces) to denote them, but >>> instead use [ ] - which feels slightly strange given the class declaration >>> above has. {}. >>> >>> Was it easier to parse this way, or is there some subtlety I missed? I would >>> have been tempted to use {} for classes and methods and [] for the >>> protocols as this more closely matches what other languages do - and it >>> might actually make it more easily readable for other programmers. Given we >>> have to learn this new format anyway - I’d be prepared to give a nod to what >>> others do… >>> >>> Possibly this observation comes to late - and maybe there is compelling >>> reason to go the route we have gone - but maybe its worth a quick double >>> check as its an exciting development. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:18, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I released Iceberg version 0.6. It includes a lot of small tweaks and fixes, >>> but the most important inclusion is tonel file format which aims to replace >>> file tree. >>> >>> What is Tonel? (https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel) >>> Tonel is a file-per-class file format for monticello repositories. It’s >>> purpose is to reduce the amount of files touched each operation, make the IO >>> faster an compact the repositories database. >>> It has also as an objective to offer an “easy-to-read” format, so people >>> wanting to understand a chunk of code will recognise it easily. >>> For testing, I migrated several of my projects to Tonel and I’ve been using >>> it, you can see some as examples: >>> >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/MUDClient >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-tonel (this was just an example and it >>> has some minimal errors already fixed) >>> >>> We plan to migrate Pharo development to tonel to address some problems we >>> have: >>> >>> - since it has to read/write a lot of files, IO operations are slow >>> - and even much more slow in Windows >>> - Windows also has a problem with longpaths. >>> >>> Iceberg 0.6 will be integrated to Pharo7 soon :) >>> To update Pharo 6.1, there are instructions in the readme: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/blob/master/README.md >>> now, if you wan to migrate your projects to Tonel (from FileTree), here is a >>> script you can use: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel/blob/master/MigrateFromFileTree.md >>> >>> btw, tonel is independent of Iceberg and can be used with plain Monticello >>> (but it is a metadaless format, history will reside on git, not on >>> monticello). >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tonel looks really nice - very clean and readable. A question about the dual use of #category here... Class { #name : #MUDAliasCommand, #superclass : #Object, #instVars : [ 'keywords' ], #classVars : [ 'CommandParser' ], #category : 'MUDClient-Plugin-Alias- } { #category : #'instance creation' } MUDAliasCommand class >> fromString: aString [ ^ self parse: aString ] It would be nice to separate the semantics, changing one to either #package or the other to #protocol. I thought we were leaving class categories behind, so the following seems to provide a more consistent future... #package : 'MUDClient-Plugin-Alias- Now because we live with this the next ten years, even though I'm mindful that you're "done", I'm going to be annoying and ask consideration to fine tune one thing, to move the open-square-bracket like this... { #category : #'instance creation' } [ MUDAliasCommand class >> fromString: aString ^ self parse: aString ] This would help adhoc copy-pasting from web repos into the Image. Although as Tonel currently stands it is trivial to delete one square bracket, it would be more elegant not doing it when copy-pasting a dozen methods. I hope for a future where new methods might be created directly from Playground by doing... MUDAliasCommand class >> fromString: aString ^ self parse: aString and further, if Opal could be made parse STON format and recognize the back-to-back close-curly/open-square brackets**, you could copy-paste a whole class from a Tonel web repo into Playground or the Browser to adhoc install of a whole class. That would be magic! ** Actually this might be easier to identify than if they are separated. On a minor note, "fromString: aString" is part of the method source, so it conceptually it should be okay to have inside the square brackets. Anyway, I understand if there are constraints against making this change, being late to the party but some thoughts don't arise until there is a practical example to reflect on and the final chance is imminent, so just asking it be considered. cheers -ben P.S. in a world where Bloc can do arbitrary objects inline with text, the "MUDAliasCommand class >>" part might show as one chunk to the left of "fromString: aString". The benefit for newcomers would be *explicitly* showing which instance/class-side the method belongs to, rather than relying on the implicit selection of the class-button which newcomers often miss (I remember being caught on that a few times until I got my eye attuned) |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephane Ducasse-3
I see the answer is due to STON - fine I'll live with it.
I think we missed a chance to superficially look like more conventional languages on the web in GitHub but that ship had sailed and maybe it's not such a bad thing. I'll happily take just been able to efficiently use GitHub asap any day. So please keep rolling forward. Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Oct 2017, at 09:08, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Tim > > we talk about this format of methods year ago and we will like it and > we will not discuss it anymore. > For the record a method is a named block so it fits and we do not have > to have {} for method delimiters. > > Stef > >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Gosh - It actually work quite well to be able to easily browse code online >> in a more traditional format of seeing an entire class. Hopefully this leads >> to us being able to share solutions to common language agnostic problems. >> >> One small observation - I quickly grok’d the use of class { …. } (with the >> curly braces) - but given that smalltalk methods often have lots of [ ] >> (square braces in them), I was a bit surprised to see that method >> declarations in tonal don’t use { … } (curly braces) to denote them, but >> instead use [ ] - which feels slightly strange given the class declaration >> above has. {}. >> >> Was it easier to parse this way, or is there some subtlety I missed? I would >> have been tempted to use {} for classes and methods and [] for the >> protocols as this more closely matches what other languages do - and it >> might actually make it more easily readable for other programmers. Given we >> have to learn this new format anyway - I’d be prepared to give a nod to what >> others do… >> >> Possibly this observation comes to late - and maybe there is compelling >> reason to go the route we have gone - but maybe its worth a quick double >> check as its an exciting development. >> >> Tim >> >> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:18, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I released Iceberg version 0.6. It includes a lot of small tweaks and fixes, >> but the most important inclusion is tonel file format which aims to replace >> file tree. >> >> What is Tonel? (https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel) >> Tonel is a file-per-class file format for monticello repositories. It’s >> purpose is to reduce the amount of files touched each operation, make the IO >> faster an compact the repositories database. >> It has also as an objective to offer an “easy-to-read” format, so people >> wanting to understand a chunk of code will recognise it easily. >> For testing, I migrated several of my projects to Tonel and I’ve been using >> it, you can see some as examples: >> >> https://github.com/estebanlm/MUDClient >> https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-tonel (this was just an example and it >> has some minimal errors already fixed) >> >> We plan to migrate Pharo development to tonel to address some problems we >> have: >> >> - since it has to read/write a lot of files, IO operations are slow >> - and even much more slow in Windows >> - Windows also has a problem with longpaths. >> >> Iceberg 0.6 will be integrated to Pharo7 soon :) >> To update Pharo 6.1, there are instructions in the readme: >> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/blob/master/README.md >> now, if you wan to migrate your projects to Tonel (from FileTree), here is a >> script you can use: >> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel/blob/master/MigrateFromFileTree.md >> >> btw, tonel is independent of Iceberg and can be used with plain Monticello >> (but it is a metadaless format, history will reside on git, not on >> monticello). >> >> cheers, >> Esteban >> >> > |
|
|
> On 8 Oct 2017, at 01:40, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I see the answer is due to STON - fine I'll live with it. > > I think we missed a chance to superficially look like more conventional languages on the web in GitHub but that ship had sailed and maybe it's not such a bad thing. I think tonel does a fair job in keeping “Pharo flavour” and not looking completely alien to newcomers/non-pharoers. the method detail is just that, a detail. And even looking for readability, we still need to keep what we are, I think :) > I'll happily take just been able to efficiently use GitHub asap any day. well, that’s what I’m working on :) Esteban > > So please keep rolling forward. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 7 Oct 2017, at 09:08, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Tim >> >> we talk about this format of methods year ago and we will like it and >> we will not discuss it anymore. >> For the record a method is a named block so it fits and we do not have >> to have {} for method delimiters. >> >> Stef >> >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Gosh - It actually work quite well to be able to easily browse code online >>> in a more traditional format of seeing an entire class. Hopefully this leads >>> to us being able to share solutions to common language agnostic problems. >>> >>> One small observation - I quickly grok’d the use of class { …. } (with the >>> curly braces) - but given that smalltalk methods often have lots of [ ] >>> (square braces in them), I was a bit surprised to see that method >>> declarations in tonal don’t use { … } (curly braces) to denote them, but >>> instead use [ ] - which feels slightly strange given the class declaration >>> above has. {}. >>> >>> Was it easier to parse this way, or is there some subtlety I missed? I would >>> have been tempted to use {} for classes and methods and [] for the >>> protocols as this more closely matches what other languages do - and it >>> might actually make it more easily readable for other programmers. Given we >>> have to learn this new format anyway - I’d be prepared to give a nod to what >>> others do… >>> >>> Possibly this observation comes to late - and maybe there is compelling >>> reason to go the route we have gone - but maybe its worth a quick double >>> check as its an exciting development. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:18, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I released Iceberg version 0.6. It includes a lot of small tweaks and fixes, >>> but the most important inclusion is tonel file format which aims to replace >>> file tree. >>> >>> What is Tonel? (https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel) >>> Tonel is a file-per-class file format for monticello repositories. It’s >>> purpose is to reduce the amount of files touched each operation, make the IO >>> faster an compact the repositories database. >>> It has also as an objective to offer an “easy-to-read” format, so people >>> wanting to understand a chunk of code will recognise it easily. >>> For testing, I migrated several of my projects to Tonel and I’ve been using >>> it, you can see some as examples: >>> >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/MUDClient >>> https://github.com/estebanlm/pharo-tonel (this was just an example and it >>> has some minimal errors already fixed) >>> >>> We plan to migrate Pharo development to tonel to address some problems we >>> have: >>> >>> - since it has to read/write a lot of files, IO operations are slow >>> - and even much more slow in Windows >>> - Windows also has a problem with longpaths. >>> >>> Iceberg 0.6 will be integrated to Pharo7 soon :) >>> To update Pharo 6.1, there are instructions in the readme: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/blob/master/README.md >>> now, if you wan to migrate your projects to Tonel (from FileTree), here is a >>> script you can use: >>> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/tonel/blob/master/MigrateFromFileTree.md >>> >>> btw, tonel is independent of Iceberg and can be used with plain Monticello >>> (but it is a metadaless format, history will reside on git, not on >>> monticello). >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >>> >> > > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |