[ANN] stable package universe for 3.9

Lex, et. al,

I regularly use

Connectors 2.3-187

and

Diagram Browser 25-Jul-2004

work with 3.9 7061.  I have not had any trouble with them.

I use them to draw database, class, state, and network diagrams for my day
job.  I am really greatful to have real tools that I can mold to my needs.

I still think that Squeak Rocks!
tap

Connectors & Diagram Browser - nice - hot favourites for developer
image?

pf

Thomas A Petersen píše v Po 13. 11. 2006 v 07:44 -0500:

Frank Caggiano <[hidden email]> writes:
> IRCe  works in 3.9.


Thomas A Petersen <[hidden email]> writes:
> I regularly use
>
> Connectors 2.3-187
>
> and
>
> Diagram Browser 25-Jul-2004


Sure, guys, I have now added Connectors, Diagram Browser, and IRCe.
I've also added Celeste, which is my main use of Squeak nowadays
outside of giving presentations.

What else?

-Lex

> What else?
>
> -Lex

There should be an image that does NOT have MC or SqueakMap in it, but
does have the Universe browser.  There should be packages for MC and
SqueakMap, of course.

For newbies, the package universe makes much more sense than
SqueakMap, since packages know dependencies.

-Ralph

This image is on its way!

Check out: http://wiki.squeak.org/KernelLoadUniverses

This is intended to be the beginning of such an image beginning with a
minimal KernelImage.

Keith  

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 05:02:43PM +0100, Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> Sure, guys, I have now added Connectors, Diagram Browser, and IRCe.
> I've also added Celeste, which is my main use of Squeak nowadays
> outside of giving presentations.
>
> What else?
>
> -Lex

I use OSProcess and CommandShell. But I might be biased ;)

Dave
 

Lex Spoon puso en su mail :

> What else?
>
> -Lex
Please add
Keymapping-3.8-cds.115.mcz
FileMan-mu.44.mcz
DebugReport-minami.11.mcz
Announcements-lr.5.mcz
Mondrian-lr.26.mcz

Edgar


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package have to
be republished in it's universe?  It sounded like that on the web page.  And
if I have a universe already is there something like "apt-get update" for
it?

In any event, it would be nice for seaside, pier and a few others to be on
there so those packages could get rid of their own scripts (to make
maintenance easier).

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

"J J" <[hidden email]> writes:
> Forgive my ignorance, but does every new version of a given package
> have to be republished in it's universe?  It sounded like that on the
> web page.  And if I have a universe already is there something like
> "apt-get update" for it?

Yes.  In fact, that is at the core of the system.  If you do not
publish Foo version X into a universe, then people using that
praticular universe will not even know Foo version X exists.

Thus, package universes do take work to maintain.  However, that work
pays off, in that you end up with a set of packages that have been
hand selected.


> In any event, it would be nice for seaside, pier and a few others to
> be on there so those packages could get rid of their own scripts (to
> make maintenance easier).

Hmmm, well, I might have to look closely at them if the install is
non-trivial.  Each of those authors, you know, is welcome to do it
themselves, too.  ;)


-Lex

20 Nov 2006 18:41:32 +0100, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]>:
Pier and Seaside can be just loaded from Monticello, as it should be.
Nothing else is possible since they are developed using Monticello.

However:
- They get updated regularly, sometimes several times a week.
- The loading might include some gui interaction (asking for passwords
and stuff)
- They have a large list of depencies, that's what the scripts are for.

Philippe

Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment,
you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a
Universe, right? :)

It sounds to me like Universes could replace squeak map, right?  If so,
would it be possible to hook into the squeak map (and/or Monticello)
publishing process so that squeak map publishes cause a publish to a
universe (or vise versa since the universe publish may require more info)?  
That would make migrating to a universe based system easier.  The easiest
way to get people to use something is (a) make it transparently a part of
what they did before or (b) make it do what they did before and easier for
them.

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview

It is this last one that made me think these packages could benefit greatly
from being part of the universe system.  Then instead of having to keep your
dependencies up to date with a script you could do it in the universe system
and perhaps that system could help manage it a bit.  It's not that I think
the current method is broken, just that it could be easier.

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com

"J J" <[hidden email]> writes:
Yes, if there are a lot of dependencies, then I would think setting up
a package universe would really help you.  You can either use the main
public universe, or you could set up a server of your own.  Note that
universes combine nicely: you can very well pull packages from the
union of a private universe and a public one.


Back on the original question, let me mention two things that make it
easier to post new releases than you might think.


First, once you post a package the first time, you do not have to fill
in all the fields again.  There is a button "new package version"
which lets you just change the parts that have changed.  Usually, you
can simply change the version number and the download URL.


Second, it is only a little bit of code to post, so you can automate
it if you like.  Here is the relevant code (I'll go post this on the
wiki, too):


newPackage _ UPackage new.
newPackage name: 'FFFPackage'.
newPackage depends: #('dependency1' 'dependency2').
newPackage description: 'here''s an example package'.
newPackage homepage: 'http://www.squeak.org' asUrl.
newPackage url: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/whatever' asUrl.
newPackage version: (UVersion readFromString: '1.0').
newPackage maintainer: 'Joe Blow <[hidden email]>'.

client _ UUniverseClient forUniverse: UUniverse developmentUniverse.
client sendMessage: (UMAddPackage username: 'USERNAME' password: 'PASSWORD' package: newPackage).

[true] whileTrue: [ client receivedMessagesDo: [ :m | m inspect.  (m class == UMPackageAdded or: [ m class == UMError ]) ifTrue: [ ^self ] ]. (Delay forSeconds: 1) wait. ].



You can put this in a workspace, or in a class method somewhere, so
that you can invoke it whenever you are ready to make a release.



Stepping back, I don't see how it can be much easier.  I mean, even
during heavy development, is there not a difference between a
release and a Monticello commit?



-Lex

"J J" <[hidden email]> writes:
Sort of.  I think most developers would be happy to have a package
universe to work within from which they pull most packages.  I think
package universes could replace that one bit of functionality: when a
developer thinks, "I want to load Seaside", then their first stop
could be to go to the universe browser instead of SqueakMap.

That is just one function, though.  SqueakMap remains an important
catalog and archive of all Squeak software that has ever been
publically posted.  Package universes is not that.  By design it is
not that, and I do not see how it ever could be.


> If so, would it be possible to hook into the squeak map (and/or
> Monticello) publishing process so that squeak map publishes cause a
> publish to a universe (or vise versa since the universe publish may
> require more info)?

Things like this are certainly possible.  For example, it would be
great if SqueakSource had a button you could press to post a
package-universes release.

My intuition has been that Monticello commits are more frequent than
actual releases.  That has always been the case for my code.  But
maybe other people work differently?  If so, then indeed it would be
nice to hook into the Monticello commit process, and/or to hook a
Monticello stream directly into a universe.


> That would make migrating to a universe based
> system easier.  The easiest way to get people to use something is (a)
> make it transparently a part of what they did before or (b) make it do
> what they did before and easier for them.

I agree.  Ideas?  Unfortunately, my Squeak coding time is pretty
limited these days, but then again Smalltalk is dense enough that many
workable solutions just take a few lines of code....


-Lex

A package universe is better than Monticello or SqueakMap for
beginners and for people who don't care whether they have the absolute
latest version, but just want something that is going to work.

Squeak Map is better for people who want to explore, for people who
want to find everything, even if it takes a little work to get it
going.

Monticello is better for people who  want to participate in the
development of a package or who want the latest version.  It takes
more expertise to use Monticello than to use a package universe.

A package universe comes with some sort of understanding (I was going
to say "guarentee", but changed my mind) that the packages all work
together.  This implies that someone is responsible for it.  Squeak
Map is a set of things that someone, at some time, thought was
interesting, but many of them do not work together, and that is OK.
It would not be OK if a package universe contained packages that did
not work together.  I think a package universe will work best if it is
"owned" by someone or by a small group.  A package universe is by
design not complete, but it is consistent.

Squeak Map is complete.  There is only one Squeak Map, and everything
is in it.  Or should be.  Anybody can write to it, and anybody who has
ever made a Squeak package should write to it to tell the world about
what they have done.  Consequently, Squeak Map is not consistent.

So, I think there is room for all three systems.  They each do
something different.

I think that newcomers should start out with a package universe and
then graduate to Squeak Map and Monticello.

-Ralph Johnson

On 11/20/06, J J <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ok, so what that basically means is, if you publish a package at the moment,
> you have to save it to Monticello, publish to squeak map and put it in a
> Universe, right? :)

If you are developing a package with someone else, it will probably be
in Monticello.  Your first users will be other developers, probably
all experts, and you will just let them use your repository.
Eventually you will advertise on Squeak Map.  You probably do not have
your own Universe, but perhaps someone with a bleeding edge Universe
will include your package in his Universe.  If your package is stable
enough to be useful and gets a lot of users then it will get put in
one of the more stable Universes.  Unless you run the Universe, you
won't post it there.

If I were running a Universe, I would only include packages that had
test suites.  When new versions of packages came out, or there were
new packages that I wanted to include, I'd want a fairly automatic way
to run all the test suites.  One idea is to make a "test universe"
that adds a few packages to my main universe.  Ideally, I could
override the packages with new versions, add the new packages, and run
all the tests in the new universe.  If I liked the results, I'd update
the main universe with the new versions.

Lex, I have a question.  I know that one Universe can include another.
 Can a Universe override packages, i.e. have a different version of a
package?

-Ralph

If you publish something to squeak map do you have to go to the SqueakSource
web page?  If that is the case then I think your idea above about the
SqueakSource web site could be a really convenient way to do this.

For each package, the site could show the universes that package is a part
of.  If you publish a new version and you have universes defined then it
could ask you if you want to publish to those universes.  This will probably
take a bit of coding, but maybe it could get universes used more.

Who would we have to talk to about adding something like this to
squeaksource?

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

Thank you for your explanations.  Expanding on the idea Lex mentioned
earlier about making squeaksource universe aware, it would be possible to
have tests run automatically if someone tried to publish to a universe to
decide if it goes in or not.  A system like this might make building
releases easier if there was just a "3.10 Standard Universe" or something.


_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview

2006/11/21, J J <[hidden email]>:
SqueakSource supports publishing to SqueakMap. But HTTPSocket does not
support POST via a proxy.

Philippe

"Ralph Johnson" <[hidden email]> writes:
> A package universe is [...]
>
> Squeak Map is [...]
>
> Monticello is [...]


Well and concisely put, professor.  I cannot see a space to insert a
single extra coin, much less two whole cents.  This post would make a
good documentation entry somewhere, for people new to all of the
Squeak community tools.  -Lex