Celeste email client in Squeak 4.4

> Hannes,
>
>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>
> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>
> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>
> -- Jecel
>
>

> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Hannes,
>>
>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>
>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>
>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>
>> -- Jecel
>>
>>
>
>

> On 10/5/12, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Celeste was always a cool example and it sounds like it wouldn't be
>> much to get it going in 4.4.  I hope someone will do it.
>
> Chris,
>
> what are the reasons why you thing that porting wouldn't be a big issue.
>
> Because it relies on libraries which did not change much from 4.1 to 4.4?
>
> Do you remember what it needs as prerequisite?
>
> --Hannes
>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hannes,
>>>
>>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>>
>>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
>>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>>
>>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>>
>>> -- Jecel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

> I don't have any reasons other than intuition.  Just thinking about it
> -- with Celeste we have a standard window, a domain model and access
> to SMTP.  Which of these would be difficult in 4.4?  Nothing comes to
> mind.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:10 AM, H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/5/12, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Celeste was always a cool example and it sounds like it wouldn't be
>>> much to get it going in 4.4.  I hope someone will do it.
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> what are the reasons why you thing that porting wouldn't be a big issue.
>>
>> Because it relies on libraries which did not change much from 4.1 to 4.4?
>>
>> Do you remember what it needs as prerequisite?
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hannes,
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>>>
>>>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>>>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>>>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
>>>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>>>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>>>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>>>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>>>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jecel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

> Oops, I just saw Edgar's note.
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't have any reasons other than intuition.  Just thinking about it
>> -- with Celeste we have a standard window, a domain model and access
>> to SMTP.  Which of these would be difficult in 4.4?  Nothing comes to
>> mind.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:10 AM, H. Hirzel <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/12, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Celeste was always a cool example and it sounds like it wouldn't be
>>>> much to get it going in 4.4.  I hope someone will do it.
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> what are the reasons why you thing that porting wouldn't be a big issue.
>>>
>>> Because it relies on libraries which did not change much from 4.1 to
>>> 4.4?
>>>
>>> Do you remember what it needs as prerequisite?
>>>
>>> --Hannes
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hannes,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>>>>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>>>>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used
>>>>> the
>>>>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>>>>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>>>>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>>>>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>>>>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jecel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

>
>
>
> On 10/5/12 12:43 PM, "H. Hirzel" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Edgar mentions in the other thread that Google mail does not work and
>> that we might get the missing code from Zinc. Would it be possible to
>> give some elaborations on that?
>>
>> --Hannes
>
> See Sven original post at
>
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2012-February/059812.ht
> ml
>
> In short, for have gmail you must deal with HTTPS  , hope this help
>
> Edgar
>