Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Improving Ghost proxies

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Denis Kudriashov

Improving Ghost proxies

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,

Denis

Denis Kudriashov

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

And who is using Ghost now?

If I will change something I want to check users

2016-02-15 11:15 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]>:

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,
Denis

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Hi Denis,

I welcome you push on Ghost. The original source of Ghost was in SS3 and then, the CAR team move it to Shub and hence why it is there. I THINK they did not do many changes from the "upstream" project, so it should be safe to take that one. I guess you should ask Luc Fabrese about that.

Debugging, inspecting, etc was some of the problems that Ghost did solve. I was able to do all that. And you were able to enable/disabled debugging capabilities dynamically.

What I really really really recommend you is that before doing anything with Ghost, please read the whole journal paper as there is a lot of discussion, possibilities, explanations of why we took path X, etc etc:

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01081236/file/Mart14z-Ghost-Final.pdf

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

I know that is is subjective, but from my latest experience with git, if I were to make the move of a repository (which requires some effort) I would do it to github.

Finally, let me say something.... what I got from my Ghost proxies experience is that Ghost could serve as a proxy library for "common" usage. The code of Ghost is very very little. What is most important is the idea, not the code. This is why, many of the people that got interested in using Ghost for a project X, they ended up "forking" the original Ghost code and adapt it. So...while Ghost can be used and extended for different purposes, I think it's not bad either that someone forks it and adjusts it for his needs.

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,
Denis

Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

stepharo

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

Le 15/2/16 14:10, Mariano Martinez Peck a écrit :

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Hi Denis,

I welcome you push on Ghost. The original source of Ghost was in SS3 and then, the CAR team move it to Shub and hence why it is there. I THINK they did not do many changes from the "upstream" project, so it should be safe to take that one. I guess you should ask Luc Fabrese about that.

Debugging, inspecting, etc was some of the problems that Ghost did solve. I was able to do all that. And you were able to enable/disabled debugging capabilities dynamically.

What I really really really recommend you is that before doing anything with Ghost, please read the whole journal paper as there is a lot of discussion, possibilities, explanations of why we took path X, etc etc:

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01081236/file/Mart14z-Ghost-Final.pdf

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

I know that is is subjective, but from my latest experience with git, if I were to make the move of a repository (which requires some effort) I would do it to github.

No core package of Pharo should be managed with git.
We will move all together and not pieces by pieces.

Finally, let me say something.... what I got from my Ghost proxies experience is that Ghost could serve as a proxy library for "common" usage. The code of Ghost is very very little. What is most important is the idea, not the code. This is why, many of the people that got interested in using Ghost for a project X, they ended up "forking" the original Ghost code and adapt it. So...while Ghost can be used and extended for different purposes, I think it's not bad either that someone forks it and adjusts it for his needs.

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,

Denis

--

Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

stepharo

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov

our policy is
Any package used in the core of Pharo should be saved under Pharo.

Stef

Le 15/2/16 11:15, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,

Denis

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:

our policy is
Any package used in the core of Pharo should be saved under Pharo.

Stef, I think that's not correct. It might be the vision, but it's not the current state. QuallityAssistant, GT-Tools, etc are all examples of tools that come inside Pharo and are NOT under Pharo Shub team.

Unless by "in the core of Pharo" you mean something smaller than current Pharo image?

Cheers,

Stef

Le 15/2/16 11:15, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,

Denis

Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Thanks Denis. I can reproduce this and am taking a look at this today.

Best regards,
Denis

_,,,^..^,,,_

best, Eliot

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

In reply to this post by stepharo

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:21 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 15/2/16 14:10, Mariano Martinez Peck a écrit :

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email][hidden email]> wrote:

Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Hi Denis,

I welcome you push on Ghost. The original source of Ghost was in SS3 and then, the CAR team move it to Shub and hence why it is there. I THINK they did not do many changes from the "upstream" project, so it should be safe to take that one. I guess you should ask Luc Fabrese about that.

Debugging, inspecting, etc was some of the problems that Ghost did solve. I was able to do all that. And you were able to enable/disabled debugging capabilities dynamically.

What I really really really recommend you is that before doing anything with Ghost, please read the whole journal paper as there is a lot of discussion, possibilities, explanations of why we took path X, etc etc:

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01081236/file/Mart14z-Ghost-Final.pdf

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

I know that is is subjective, but from my latest experience with git, if I were to make the move of a repository (which requires some effort) I would do it to github.

No core package of Pharo should be managed with git.
We will move all together and not pieces by pieces.

This is great to hear!

Finally, let me say something.... what I got from my Ghost proxies experience is that Ghost could serve as a proxy library for "common" usage. The code of Ghost is very very little. What is most important is the idea, not the code. This is why, many of the people that got interested in using Ghost for a project X, they ended up "forking" the original Ghost code and adapt it. So...while Ghost can be used and extended for different purposes, I think it's not bad either that someone forks it and adjusts it for his needs.

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,

Denis

--

Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

_,,,^..^,,,_

best, Eliot

EstebanLM

Re: Improving Ghost proxies

In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck

On 15 Feb 2016, at 18:15, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:
our policy is
Any package used in the core of Pharo should be saved under Pharo.

Stef, I think that's not correct. It might be the vision, but it's not the current state. QuallityAssistant, GT-Tools, etc are all examples of tools that come inside Pharo and are NOT under Pharo Shub team.

it is correct.

just that, since we are humans (and we consider some places like the glamour team part of Pharo), and stfx is just the side of one of our board members (and is super fast to access), some packages are allowed to remain outside the “direct" umbrella.

Some other will be moved to Pharo, PharoExtras or own of our teams as soon as I can find the time to do it :)

Also, please note that this follows not a technical but a political reason in first term: All what is ”Pharo” is/has to be under control of the Pharo community and not individuals… no matter how cool that individual is :)

Then there are also some technical reasons:

- sthub, while limited, is a lot faster to access than all the others (and this is an issue specially when integrating).

- in long term, we might want to move to git/whatever, but our tools (while very ok for particular development) does not have reach enough maturity to do the step. We have some plans to improve it next year but well… we had same plans last year and the the urgent won to the important.

anyway… yes, Pharo stuff should be under Pharo umbrella, Stef is correct… even when it does not happens all the time because we have been slow on implement it.

Esteban, back from vacations

Unless by "in the core of Pharo" you mean something smaller than current Pharo image?

Cheers,

Stef

Le 15/2/16 11:15, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :
Hello.

I think it is important to get single proxy framework for Pharo. It should provide required integration support for our tools.

I want push Ghost in that direction. Debuggers and inspectors should work correctly with proxies which based on Ghost.

Now Ghost is stored in CAR team repository. Should we move it to Pharo?

P.S. Ghost has one failed tests due to Spur problem 17536.

Best regards,
Denis

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com