Smalltalk › Instantiations

Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

Louis LaBrunda

Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VA Smalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/va-smalltalk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Richard Sargent

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Administrator

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:

Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

John O'Keefe-3

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:

The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Richard Sargent

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Administrator

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 12:51:25 PM UTC-7, John O'Keefe wrote:

And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:
The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic

Just for discussion, does that mean if Lou did NOT actually create a reduced run-time package, but actually ran a development image, would that meet the terms of the license?

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Louis LaBrunda

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

In reply to this post by John O'Keefe-3

Hi John,

Thanks for the information. I knew the license didn't allow packaging certain parts of the system like the compiler and such so one couldn't basically reproduce the system with a different name. I hoped #inspect didn't fall into this category.

I did play with packaging a version with #inspect included, saying the prerequisites are "a bit sloppy" is being very, very kind. I was able to get it packaged once but that didn't work when I tried to call #inspect on and object. When I tried to package with more things included the sloppiness got to be too much for me.

Richard, I think distributing a development image would still have licensing problems and wouldn't meet my needs anyway but thanks for the thought.

I still like the idea, so I may look into my own form of #inspect.

Lou

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:51:25 PM UTC-4, John O'Keefe wrote:

And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:
The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic
John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Marten Feldtmann-2

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Initially under IBM it was not allowed to deliver the compiler - but I think, that this has changed somewhere in the past ...

Am Dienstag, 17. März 2015 22:13:02 UTC+1 schrieb Louis LaBrunda:

Hi John,

Thanks for the information. I knew the license didn't allow packaging certain parts of the system like the compiler and such so one couldn't basically reproduce the system with a different name. I hoped #inspect didn't fall into this category.

I did play with packaging a version with #inspect included, saying the prerequisites are "a bit sloppy" is being very, very kind. I was able to get it packaged once but that didn't work when I tried to call #inspect on and object. When I tried to package with more things included the sloppiness got to be too much for me.

Richard, I think distributing a development image would still have licensing problems and wouldn't meet my needs anyway but thanks for the thought.

I still like the idea, so I may look into my own form of #inspect.

Lou

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:51:25 PM UTC-4, John O'Keefe wrote:
And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:
The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic
John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Klaus Breker-2

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

In reply to this post by Louis LaBrunda

Hi Louis,

maybe the Visual Inspector for VisualAge or parts of it could be an alternative for you?

Klaus

Louis LaBrunda

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Hi Klaus,

I'm not sure what "Visual Inspector" you mean but I expect it is a development time class that will not package well.

Lou

Hi Louis,

maybe the Visual Inspector for VisualAge or parts of it could be an alternative for you?

Klaus

John O'Keefe-3

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Lou -

You are correct - the Visual Inspector prereqs EtTools.

John

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:39:43 AM UTC-4, Louis LaBrunda wrote:

Hi Klaus,

I'm not sure what "Visual Inspector" you mean but I expect it is a development time class that will not package well.

Lou

Hi Louis,

maybe the Visual Inspector for VisualAge or parts of it could be an alternative for you?

Klaus

John O'Keefe-3

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

In reply to this post by Richard Sargent

Splitting lawyer's hairs here (keeping in mind that my job is writing code, not writing contracts or licenses -- something I'm not qualified to do):

The development time apps are licensed 'per developer seat'. So if Lou wanted to run 'x' servers with the development time apps included, he would need 'x' licenses besides his development license. If the server is on his customer's system(s), they would need 'x' developer licenses.

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 12:51:25 PM UTC-7, John O'Keefe wrote:
And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:
The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic

Just for discussion, does that mean if Lou did NOT actually create a reduced run-time package, but actually ran a development image, would that meet the terms of the license?

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Louis LaBrunda

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

HI John,

License wise, things are just as I thought. Even if one could easily get around the license, the packaging mountain is too hight to climb.

At any rate I am well along at making my own inspector window. It won't do everything the real one does (like change things) but I don't need it to. I will keep everyone informed and may post it on the goodies site.

Lou

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 3:48:15 PM UTC-4, John O'Keefe wrote:

Splitting lawyer's hairs here (keeping in mind that my job is writing code, not writing contracts or licenses -- something I'm not qualified to do):

The development time apps are licensed 'per developer seat'. So if Lou wanted to run 'x' servers with the development time apps included, he would need 'x' licenses besides his development license. If the server is on his customer's system(s), they would need 'x' developer licenses.

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 12:51:25 PM UTC-7, John O'Keefe wrote:
And now the pseudo-lawyer will jump into the discussion.

#inspect is implemented in EtBaseTools, AbtBaseToolsAdditionApp, and AbtEditPartsApp. This results in 2 problems for you:
The licensing for VA Smalltalk does not allow use of these classes at run time (something that could possibly be overcome by a one-off amendment to the license -- this is still under control of IBM)
Since these apps were never intended for use at run time, their prerequisites are (how shall we say) "a bit sloppy", so reduced run time packaging of these apps would be problematic

Just for discussion, does that mean if Lou did NOT actually create a reduced run-time package, but actually ran a development image, would that meet the terms of the license?

John

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:01:40 PM UTC-4, Richard Sargent wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Louis LaBrunda wrote:
Hi Guys,

Happy almost spring. Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

It looks like it might work as most of the classes that implement #inspect don't seem to be in "edit" apps.

This is going by memory, so buyer beware.

I believe doing this will require you to package a lot of the Et applications. I don't see any reason why you couldn't do this. As far as I know, it will only result in a larger packaged image. I think you will need to include EtTools, for example, in your prerequisites in order to get the packager including everything necessary.

I have a GUI program that displays status data from status objects. I have methods that display most of the important information but I would like to add a feature where I could use #inspect to see everything in the object. Before I go through the effort of building everything I would like to know I have a good shot at success. Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Lou

Louis LaBrunda

Re: Has anyone ever tried to use #inspect in a packaged GUI program?

Hi Guys,

I have made my own inspect window that can be packaged with a GUI program. It is available in KscInspectWindow on VAST Goodies. It requires KscViewExtensions also on VAST Goodies.

It is similar to the inspect window we all know and love. But you can't change any thing. It builds a tree of the instance variables of an object and the objects in those instance variables. For classes that understand #keysAndValuesDo:, it uses the keys as if they were the instance variables and the values as if they were the values of instance variables. This makes it easier to see what is in lookup tables and the like.

AbtIconHierarchyPolicy is extended to include ButtonIcons and TriangleIcons in the image.

Lou