Breaking up ToolBuilder
Locked
 
|
I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a
transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for MVC. frank |
|
|
On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a > transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 > package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. > > I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' > and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). > This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for > MVC. So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? frank |
|
|
On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a >> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 >> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. >> >> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' >> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). >> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for >> MVC. > > So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't > know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work? - Bert - |
|
|
On 31 May 2013 00:02, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a >>> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 >>> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. >>> >>> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' >>> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). >>> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for >>> MVC. >> >> So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't >> know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? > > > What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work? I opted to move ToolBuilder-Morphic to MorphicToolBuilder to maintain _some_ degree of separation. It might be a fool's errand, given that loads of Morphic things reference UIManager and so already have a direct dependency on ToolBuilder. Assuming that this move is good (as in, better than ToolBuilder-Morphic -> Morphic-ToolBuilder, putting these classes in the Morphic package), I guess my newbie senses are tingling. This change guts 3 packages and adds 3 new ones. But I guess all I need to do - this is the part I'd like some reassurance with - is: * upload everything to trunk, * publish a config map with the new packages before ToolBuilder, * LEAVE the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages in the map, * (much later, maybe in the 4.5 windup) publish a new config map with the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages removed. frank > - Bert - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On 5/23/13, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a > transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 > package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. > > I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' > and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). > This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for > MVC. +1 > frank > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On 2013-05-31, at 10:39, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 31 May 2013 00:02, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a >>>> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 >>>> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. >>>> >>>> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' >>>> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). >>>> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for >>>> MVC. >>> >>> So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't >>> know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? >> >> >> What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work? > > I opted to move ToolBuilder-Morphic to MorphicToolBuilder to maintain > _some_ degree of separation. I don't feel that's necessary. It could just be part of Morphic. > It might be a fool's errand, given that > loads of Morphic things reference UIManager and so already have a > direct dependency on ToolBuilder. > > Assuming that this move is good (as in, better than > ToolBuilder-Morphic -> Morphic-ToolBuilder, putting these classes in > the Morphic package), I guess my newbie senses are tingling. This > change guts 3 packages and adds 3 new ones. But I guess all I need to > do - this is the part I'd like some reassurance with - is: > * upload everything to trunk, > * publish a config map with the new packages before ToolBuilder, > * LEAVE the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages in the map, > * (much later, maybe in the 4.5 windup) publish a new config map with > the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages removed. Ah, I mistakenly thought ToolBuilder was a single package. So except for making up new packages this sounds right. - Bert - |
|
|
On 31 May 2013 12:16, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2013-05-31, at 10:39, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 31 May 2013 00:02, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a >>>>> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 >>>>> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' >>>>> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). >>>>> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for >>>>> MVC. >>>> >>>> So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't >>>> know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? >>> >>> >>> What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work? >> >> I opted to move ToolBuilder-Morphic to MorphicToolBuilder to maintain >> _some_ degree of separation. > > I don't feel that's necessary. It could just be part of Morphic. > >> It might be a fool's errand, given that >> loads of Morphic things reference UIManager and so already have a >> direct dependency on ToolBuilder. >> >> Assuming that this move is good (as in, better than >> ToolBuilder-Morphic -> Morphic-ToolBuilder, putting these classes in >> the Morphic package), I guess my newbie senses are tingling. This >> change guts 3 packages and adds 3 new ones. But I guess all I need to >> do - this is the part I'd like some reassurance with - is: >> * upload everything to trunk, >> * publish a config map with the new packages before ToolBuilder, >> * LEAVE the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages in the map, >> * (much later, maybe in the 4.5 windup) publish a new config map with >> the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages removed. > > > Ah, I mistakenly thought ToolBuilder was a single package. So except for making up new packages this sounds right. Right. Handily, the config map already loads SUnitGUI, Morphic and ST80 before the ToolBuilder-* packages, so I don't need to do anything (other than note the eventual removal of these packages). frank > - Bert - > > > |
|
|
On 31 May 2013 16:05, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 12:16, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On 2013-05-31, at 10:39, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> On 31 May 2013 00:02, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a >>>>>> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80 >>>>>> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder' >>>>>> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder'). >>>>>> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for >>>>>> MVC. >>>>> >>>>> So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't >>>>> know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas? >>>> >>>> >>>> What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work? >>> >>> I opted to move ToolBuilder-Morphic to MorphicToolBuilder to maintain >>> _some_ degree of separation. >> >> I don't feel that's necessary. It could just be part of Morphic. >> >>> It might be a fool's errand, given that >>> loads of Morphic things reference UIManager and so already have a >>> direct dependency on ToolBuilder. >>> >>> Assuming that this move is good (as in, better than >>> ToolBuilder-Morphic -> Morphic-ToolBuilder, putting these classes in >>> the Morphic package), I guess my newbie senses are tingling. This >>> change guts 3 packages and adds 3 new ones. But I guess all I need to >>> do - this is the part I'd like some reassurance with - is: >>> * upload everything to trunk, >>> * publish a config map with the new packages before ToolBuilder, >>> * LEAVE the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages in the map, >>> * (much later, maybe in the 4.5 windup) publish a new config map with >>> the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages removed. >> >> >> Ah, I mistakenly thought ToolBuilder was a single package. So except for making up new packages this sounds right. > > Right. Handily, the config map already loads SUnitGUI, Morphic and > ST80 before the ToolBuilder-* packages, so I don't need to do anything > (other than note the eventual removal of these packages). Er. Or do I? One of my images broke _somehow_ (as in I don't remember the actions prior to the breakage) with an emergency evaluator talking about AnObsoleteMorphicUIManager not defining something or other. I might not need to change the _order_ in the map, but perhaps I need to push the updated _versions_ of things? Sorry for being so dense where the config maps are concerned. frank > frank > >> - Bert - >> >> >> |
|
Hi, there.
I know this discussion is about 3 years old. I just stumbled upon this dependency discussion. But what about "ToolBuilder-Morphic" -> "Morphic-ToolBuilder" or "MorphicToolBuilder" "ToolBuilder-MVC" -> "ST80-ToolBuilder" or "ST80ToolBuilder" ? Right now we have 4 tool builder packages in trunk: "ToolBuilder-Kernel", "ToolBuilder-MVC", "ToolBuilder-SUnit", "ToolBuilder-Tests". Then, it is always kind of dangerous to have packages with a dash inside. Mixes up with system categories too easily. And the "prefix package" (i.e. "ToolBuilder") would commit everything again. We need to be careful. Better examples include: "CollectionsTests", "MorphicExtras", "VersionNumberTests", "KernelTests". Best, Marcel |
|
|
ToolBuilder-SUnit AND ToolBuilder-Tests? Yikes, I just looked and it
appears we only have one version of ToolBuilder-Tests and it was committed by... me?? I don't know why I would have done that. Perhaps it should be merged into ToolBuilder-SUnit. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:32 AM, marcel.taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, there. > > I know this discussion is about 3 years old. I just stumbled upon this > dependency discussion. > > But what about > > "ToolBuilder-Morphic" -> "Morphic-ToolBuilder" or "MorphicToolBuilder" > "ToolBuilder-MVC" -> "ST80-ToolBuilder" or "ST80ToolBuilder" > > ? > > Right now we have 4 tool builder packages in trunk: "ToolBuilder-Kernel", > "ToolBuilder-MVC", "ToolBuilder-SUnit", "ToolBuilder-Tests". Then, it is > always kind of dangerous to have packages with a dash inside. Mixes up with > system categories too easily. And the "prefix package" (i.e. "ToolBuilder") > would commit everything again. We need to be careful. > > Better examples include: "CollectionsTests", "MorphicExtras", > "VersionNumberTests", "KernelTests". > > Best, > Marcel > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Breaking-up-ToolBuilder-tp4689489p4877865.html > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
On 16.02.2016, at 19:56, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > ToolBuilder-SUnit AND ToolBuilder-Tests? Yikes, I just looked and it > appears we only have one version of ToolBuilder-Tests and it was > committed by... me?? I don't know why I would have done that. > Perhaps it should be merged into ToolBuilder-SUnit. > Why? ToolBuilder-Tests are tests _for_ ToolBuilder. ToolBuilder-SUnit is the SUnitToolBuilder, completely different... > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:32 AM, marcel.taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, there. >> >> I know this discussion is about 3 years old. I just stumbled upon this >> dependency discussion. >> >> But what about >> >> "ToolBuilder-Morphic" -> "Morphic-ToolBuilder" or "MorphicToolBuilder" >> "ToolBuilder-MVC" -> "ST80-ToolBuilder" or "ST80ToolBuilder" >> >> ? >> >> Right now we have 4 tool builder packages in trunk: "ToolBuilder-Kernel", >> "ToolBuilder-MVC", "ToolBuilder-SUnit", "ToolBuilder-Tests". Then, it is >> always kind of dangerous to have packages with a dash inside. Mixes up with >> system categories too easily. And the "prefix package" (i.e. "ToolBuilder") >> would commit everything again. We need to be careful. >> >> Better examples include: "CollectionsTests", "MorphicExtras", >> "VersionNumberTests", "KernelTests". >> >> Best, >> Marcel >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Breaking-up-ToolBuilder-tp4689489p4877865.html >> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel
> Right now we have 4 tool builder packages in trunk: "ToolBuilder-Kernel",
> "ToolBuilder-MVC", "ToolBuilder-SUnit", "ToolBuilder-Tests". Then, it is > always kind of dangerous to have packages with a dash inside. Mixes up with > system categories too easily. And the "prefix package" (i.e. "ToolBuilder") > would commit everything again. We need to be careful. Indeed, but I actually think dashes help solve the problem, because it lets developers employ a naming hierarchy to sets-of-packages that need it. I have several packages which started out one level but then had to be renamed to have a two-level + suffix. > Better examples include: "CollectionsTests", "MorphicExtras", > "VersionNumberTests", "KernelTests". Rename Collections to Collections-Core? |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tobias Pape
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Tobias Pape <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 16.02.2016, at 19:56, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> ToolBuilder-SUnit AND ToolBuilder-Tests? Yikes, I just looked and it >> appears we only have one version of ToolBuilder-Tests and it was >> committed by... me?? I don't know why I would have done that. >> Perhaps it should be merged into ToolBuilder-SUnit. >> > > Why? ToolBuilder-Tests are tests _for_ ToolBuilder. > ToolBuilder-SUnit is the SUnitToolBuilder, completely different... Oh okay, nevermind then. But that seems strange, though, because SUnit framework needs ToolBuilder for its UI, so wouldn't that normally be SUnit-ToolBuilder? I just looked and see we also have SUnit, SUnitGUI and SUnitTools... |
|
|
In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel
I am confused. Why is this a problem?
Right now we have these different packages: Toolbuilder-Kernel Toolbuilder-MVC Toolbuilder-Morphic Toolbuilder-SUnit Toolbuilder-Tests This is quite reasonably modular, and it works fine. If I want to unload the MVC framework, it is perfectly clear that Toolbuilder-MVC should be unloaded, and the rest of Toolbuilder-* should be left alone. Maybe I am missing something here, but I do not see any problem that needs to be fixed. I am also reminded of various attempts to modularize the system based on dependency analysis ... that result in less modularity and a less understandable system. So before we "fix" this could someone please explain why it is broken? Dave On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:32:21AM -0800, marcel.taeumel wrote: > Hi, there. > > I know this discussion is about 3 years old. I just stumbled upon this > dependency discussion. > > But what about > > "ToolBuilder-Morphic" -> "Morphic-ToolBuilder" or "MorphicToolBuilder" > "ToolBuilder-MVC" -> "ST80-ToolBuilder" or "ST80ToolBuilder" > > ? > > Right now we have 4 tool builder packages in trunk: "ToolBuilder-Kernel", > "ToolBuilder-MVC", "ToolBuilder-SUnit", "ToolBuilder-Tests". Then, it is > always kind of dangerous to have packages with a dash inside. Mixes up with > system categories too easily. And the "prefix package" (i.e. "ToolBuilder") > would commit everything again. We need to be careful. > > Better examples include: "CollectionsTests", "MorphicExtras", > "VersionNumberTests", "KernelTests". > > Best, > Marcel > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Breaking-up-ToolBuilder-tp4689489p4877865.html > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |