About XML Support in the 1.2
Locked
12
12
About XML Support in the 1.2
 
|
Hi,
I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory.
By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. Thanks, Fabrizio |
|
|
Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev.
Cheers, Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > Hi, > > I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. > > The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. > So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. > > I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. > > By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. > > Thanks, > > Fabrizio > -- www.tudorgirba.com "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by Fabrizio Perin-3
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. > What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? (not of XML, but in general) Marcus > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >> >> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >> >> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >> >> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Fabrizio >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." > > > > -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
Laurent
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba
+1
Stef On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >> >> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >> >> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >> >> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Fabrizio >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by laurent laffont
The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
Cheers, Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. > > Laurent > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >> > > What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? > (not of XML, but in general) > > Marcus > >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>> >>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>> >>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>> >>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Fabrizio >>> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >> >> >> >> > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut." |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion.
Norbert On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote: > The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> Laurent >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport from PharoDev. >>> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the tests are green? >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> Marcus >> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation impossible. >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not load XMLSupport at all. >>>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Fabrizio >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > you will end up with a messy haircut." > > |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote: It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter one being the official one, the former one being very outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower the confusion. Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be the reference IMHO. In MetacelloRepository, the latest version of ConfigurationOfXMLSupport is 1.0.2 (no 1.1.6). Laurent
|
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
I like to have related things together because they are easier to browse (from the app developer point of view) :). From the user who wants to use several packages, it is not confortable at all, I know...
I think MetacelloRepository is being used as: - a bag to put everything we don't know where to put - (in companion to Monticello) a tool to browse every available metacello config. I think 1) is not a good reason to put things there, but sometimes it is useful (or mandatory when we want a config but we don't have access to the repos, hehe). And 2) is remarking our lack of tools for metacello use :). Arghhhhh, I need time :(. I would like to gather forces with someone doing this kind of tool... Guille On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:30 AM, laurent laffont <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by laurent laffont
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote: Laurent, I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are edited in an inconsistent way. Norbert
|
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? Laurent
|
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX
in the project repository along with the project mcz files. When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available. I would not recommend that configurations be removed from MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository. Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository. It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo... Dale On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists >> in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter >> one being the official one, the former one being very >> outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove >> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower >> the confusion. >> >> >> Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be >> the reference IMHO. >> > Laurent, > > I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in > the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it > in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to > avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are > edited in an inconsistent way. > > > I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in > MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. > > But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? > > Laurent > > > Norbert > >> >> Norbert >> >> On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >> > The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Doru >> > >> > >> > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: >> > >> >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because >> blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> >> >> Laurent >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >> >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend >> on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I >> would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport >> from PharoDev. >> >>> >> >> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in >> Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the >> tests are green? >> >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Doru >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >> >>>> >> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last >> version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an >> old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I >> did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using >> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation >> impossible. >> >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) >> version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not >> load XMLSupport at all. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an >> old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has >> nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >> >>>> >> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by >> default you let people free to use the version that they like. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Fabrizio >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> >>> >> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >> <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> > >> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >> > you will end up with a messy haircut." >> > >> > >> >> >> > > |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it... On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project mcz files. |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
What we envision if the following:
As a developer you put the configurationOf in your project Then if you want your package to be available in the MetaCoolProjectsCatalogBrowser you should publish (special operation which interprets the configuration recursively and copy all the needed packages into the MetaCoolProjectsCatalogRepository of the current version of pharo. So the configuration will be in both your project and the distribution (because MetaCoolProjectsCatalogRepository is a disribution of packages). Now that metacello is available, we should push that because this is the way to go. One distribution per version and conifguration that can be tested automatically by hudson. Stef |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by Guillermo Polito
We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers.
So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration. Stef |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
+1
On 19 Jan 2011, at 16:28, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers. > So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we > can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration. > > Stef > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by Guillermo Polito
On 01/19/2011 10:28 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
> But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date > configurations... > > Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking > in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current > configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us > build tools on top of it... Agreed! > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I think that the a good working model is to store the > ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project > mcz files. > > When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to > MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a > GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations > that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for > GemStone is available. > > I would not recommend that configurations be removed from > MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that > expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there > are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version > of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository. > > Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is > critical to require that all configurations be copied to > MetacelloRepository. > > It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for > configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves > that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better > solutions for Pharo... > > Dale > > > > On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > > > On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > > It depends where you look at. > ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists > in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The > latter > one being the official one, the former one being very > outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove > ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository > to lower > the confusion. > > > Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this > should be > the reference IMHO. > > Laurent, > > I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those > files. And in > the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not > to put it > in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I > want to > avoid is having multiple different files floating around > that are > edited in an inconsistent way. > > > I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should > be put in > MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. > > But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? > > Laurent > > > Norbert > > > Norbert > > On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote: > > > The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: > > > >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because > blessing was #release. But I agree to change. > >> > >> Laurent > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> > >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend > on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in > PharoDev. I > would also strongly support the idea of removing > XMLSupport > from PharoDev. > >>> > >> > >> What would be important: we need the latest version in > Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version > where the > tests are green? > >> (not of XML, but in general) > >> > >> Marcus > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Doru > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from > Pharo 1.2. > >>>> > >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last > version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is > loaded an > old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan > 2010). I > did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using > ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this > operation > impossible. > >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) > version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 > should not > load XMLSupport at all. > >>>> > >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an > old version, also considering that the last > XMLSupport has > nice and useful features like the > XMLPluggableElementFactory. > >>>> > >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by > default you let people free to use the version that > they like. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Fabrizio > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> > <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > >>> > >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> > >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> > <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > > > > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, > > you will end up with a messy haircut." > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice
packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just toasted. So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution and I load the tools I need. If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. Or I change and switch to that distribution. So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a publication for inclusion in distribution. Stef > >> But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date >> configurations... >> >> Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking >> in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current >> configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us >> build tools on top of it... > > Agreed! > >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> I think that the a good working model is to store the >> ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project >> mcz files. >> >> When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to >> MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a >> GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations >> that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for >> GemStone is available. >> >> I would not recommend that configurations be removed from >> MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that >> expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there >> are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version >> of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository. >> >> Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is >> critical to require that all configurations be copied to >> MetacelloRepository. >> >> It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for >> configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves >> that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better >> solutions for Pharo... >> >> Dale >> >> >> >> On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: >> >> >> On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: >> >> It depends where you look at. >> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists >> in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The >> latter >> one being the official one, the former one being very >> outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove >> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository >> to lower >> the confusion. >> >> >> Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this >> should be >> the reference IMHO. >> >> Laurent, >> >> I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those >> files. And in >> the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not >> to put it >> in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I >> want to >> avoid is having multiple different files floating around >> that are >> edited in an inconsistent way. >> >> >> I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should >> be put in >> MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. >> >> But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? >> >> Laurent >> >> >> Norbert >> >> >> Norbert >> >> On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >> > The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Doru >> > >> > >> > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: >> > >> >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because >> blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >> >> >> >> Laurent >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >> >> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend >> on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in >> PharoDev. I >> would also strongly support the idea of removing >> XMLSupport >> from PharoDev. >> >>> >> >> >> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in >> Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version >> where the >> tests are green? >> >> (not of XML, but in general) >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Doru >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from >> Pharo 1.2. >> >>>> >> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last >> version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is >> loaded an >> old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan >> 2010). I >> did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using >> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this >> operation >> impossible. >> >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) >> version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 >> should not >> load XMLSupport at all. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an >> old version, also considering that the last >> XMLSupport has >> nice and useful features like the >> XMLPluggableElementFactory. >> >>>> >> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by >> default you let people free to use the version that >> they like. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Fabrizio >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> >> >>> >> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >> <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> >> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >> >> > >> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >> > you will end up with a messy haircut." >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alexandre Bergel
+1
Doru On 19 Jan 2011, at 20:32, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > +1 > > On 19 Jan 2011, at 16:28, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> We do not want our distributions of code to rely on external servers. >> So the act of publishing should means that this is available and stored in a distribution and that we >> can always access/burn it on cd and go on the moon without internet and load the configuration. >> >> Stef >> >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." |
Re: About XML Support in the 1.2
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba
I've copied latest ConfigurationOfXMLSupport in MetacelloRepository. ConfigurationOfPharo-LaurentLaffont.121 XMLSupport: - update to release 1.1.6
- add project 'XMLSupport Tests' in group 'Dev Tools Tests' All 361 tests green. Laurent Laffont On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |