[ANN] VMMaker metacello config for Squeak and Pharo

Torsten Bergmann wrote:

Andreas Raab wrote:

Let's be a bit careful before jumping heads-on into the Metacello frenzy.

Somehow I knew before that you will respond like this ... ;)

Right. And that's the problem with prejudices. If you expect a response of a certain form you'll find a way to interpret what's being said to match your expectations even though the intention may have been completely different.

What I was saying to David, not to you, is that we need to make sure that we don't introduce any undue dependencies on Metacello. Given the dependencies of Metacello itself I think there is an actual risk of that happening and I simply wanted to remind David that it's important for us to make sure VMMaker doesn't require Metacello.

BTW, it is unfair to spam your message to both Squeak-dev and the Pharo list just to paint me as a nay-sayer in the community.

Cheers,
 - Andreas

I don't mind if people choose to use Metacello to load VMMaker but it shouldn't be the only option.

Hey - Metacello is "just" a package management tool for Monticello using descriptions of the dependencies and the

versions that fit together. Anything I did was to create such a configuration. Nobody forces you or other developers to use Metacello - having such an (additional) config does not change the way you are working right now. Use Monticello, SqueakSource, ... as you did before. You can continue to use build scripts, installers, SqueakMap, Universe, whatever ... to load VMMaker.

But currently I dont see none of these "loaders" is well maintained (or only with private scripts), anything I've found was a

decription from David (see last mail) on the web. And how often does one ask which packages in which version fit

together to get VMMaker or other Squeak projects to work. Try to rebuild the

SqueakSource server and you know what I'm talking about!

Providing and maintaining a metacello spec is simple and works. And the

Is Bob/Sake project meanwhile with public access? Are you back in
Bob/Sake business?

VMMaker is at a far lower level than Seaside or other things  

Metacello is being used for.

Yes, like FFI, ExternalWebBrowsers, SQLite3 or others which
are available via configurations. You may say it is overkill for
such small projects - but you can construct more complex configs
(like Seaside) from that. 

... You can put  scripts into InstallerScripts to be loaded using ...

I know all this - but

a) I want something that works on Squeak, Pharo, Gemstone, maybe other ST's later
   (since I use Seaside)

b) I want to maintain versions in one file (here in one class)
   not in separate scripts for each version. I can use Monticello diffs to
   see how the config has changed, ...

c) I want a declarative description instead of code since I may
   use it for other purposes too (deployment and dependency tools, ...)

I could comment on the rest of your post, I basically disagree with  

pretty much everything you say.

No problem for me ... you dont have to use it.
It doesnt change anything on VMMaker or prevents you from using
other loaders/installers.

Can Metacello publish and use definitions on a web page or wiki, can  

it load from squeakmap, or universes, can it access published bug  

fixes, can you override with your own local definitions, can it  

bootstrap from the source.st code inside a monticello package.

Again: Metacello does not care about SqueakMap, Universe, Mantis
      since it is not bound to Squeak. You compare apples with oranges.

Lets play a short game:

You will find ConfigurationOfMetaSource in the MetaSource project on SqS,
that is able to load a whole seaside app right from a core image
and keep it maintained with new versions.

Show me that Installer/Sake/Bob is doing better here and is aligned
with the goals in a) b) and c)

Lets play a short game:

You will find ConfigurationOfMetaSource in the MetaSource project on SqS,
that is able to load a whole seaside app right from a core image
and keep it maintained with new versions.