Installing a package from a deployed application

Hi,
I want to install a package from a deployed EXE, and I've found that the
PackageManager doesn´t work as I expected. Anyone knows if there is an
easy way to do this?. The idea is to change an application while it's
running (or at startup) adding classes, methods or resources. I guess it
should be similar to using binary packages with the web applet, but I've
never used it, in my case loading the packages from disk.
Unitl know I only had success compiling some chunk code, but I would like
to know if there is an esay way to do it that I didn´t find yet. Any
ideas?. Thank you very much.

Diego

Diego,

> I want to install a package from a deployed EXE, and I've found that the
> PackageManager doesn´t work as I expected. Anyone knows if there is an
> easy way to do this?. The idea is to change an application while it's
> running (or at startup) adding classes, methods or resources. I guess it
> should be similar to using binary packages with the web applet, but I've
> never used it, in my case loading the packages from disk.
> Unitl know I only had success compiling some chunk code, but I would like
> to know if there is an esay way to do it that I didn´t find yet. Any
> ideas?. Thank you very much.

I think that binary packages are the answer.

With that said, I think the preferred approach is to get very good at
deploying executables, and just change/deploy/install when needed.  Yes,
I realize that is sometimes easier said than done, but so is making
sense of multiple versions of executables and binary packages.

Also, Dolphin executables tend to be quite small.  The minimum size
could be better (and it is getting smaller with time), but the marginal
cost of additional features is usually small.  High speed connections
are common, so download size is often not as important as it once was.

Have a good one,

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

Thank you for the answer, but perhaps I didn't explain well what I'am
looking for. I have an application that must be installed in serveral
places, with minor differences in each installation, like tax policies,
language, etc. I want to distribute my EXE file (and DLLs) with some
packages that apply these differences (sort of service packs). For example
if I install the system in Spain, the EXE folder would contain a
SpainTaxPolicy.pac and a SpanishLanguage.pac. If a user ask me for a
special module I would put a SpecialModule.pac. Having in mind that I can
distribute the compiler it makes sense to me to make this kind of dynamic
regionalization or improvements. I don´t care about the size of the
packages, and I don´t even care if they are compiled. In fact I see I
would have more flexibility with non compiled packages (like loose
methods).
I beleive that for this kind of systems this aproach could solve a very
old problem, that is usually solved using parameters or components. It's
seems great no to have to worry at fist what parts of your system should
be "prepared" to be changeable. I also think that I would like to
factorize those packages after some time and maybe move some behavior to
the EXE.
Thank you for your answer.

Diego

Diego,

> Thank you for the answer, but perhaps I didn't explain well what I'am
> looking for.

You did - I simply disagree with the "accepted" solution to the problem.
  That might sound hostile, but it is not intended that way.


> It's
> seems great no to have to worry at fist what parts of your system should
> be "prepared" to be changeable.

Yes, but that is the first thing to be lost with the addition of
artificial boundaries.


 > I also think that I would like to
> factorize those packages after some time and maybe move some behavior to
> the EXE.

But with a monolithic exe, you don't have to worry about moving anything
- just change it, hopefully making it better.

I believe that you and your users will be better off if you build one
exe, ship it to all users, and simply activate the correct portions for
each locale.  Then you can more quickly get to the business of making it
all better, w/o worrying about boundaries that do not need to exist.

My experience suggests that components add far more complexity than
functionality.

Just my 2 asCents.

Have a good one,

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

I agree with you about components, but I don´t see these packages are
components, because they don't define an interface. They just add more
behavior, or change existing one, to the application (ie the EXE). I see
them as plugins without the componet limitation.
If I understand you well, you said that I should make an EXE with
everything in it, and then activate its parts. But I see the limitation of
not being able to add, not predicted parts. Thank you for your comments.
Diego

"DiegoC" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
The source package system is not really intended to support run-time package
loading, and as such the Lagoon deployment system attempts to remove it.

You could probably press the PackageManager into service for the purpose you
describe, and persuade Lagoon not to unload it by creating your own
ImageStripper subclass, but I don't really see how it gains you much over
just loading in a chunk file unless you also want to be able to unload
packages. There might be licensing implications as well (I can't remember
off the top of my head).

Regards

Blair

Blair, you are right, that's my problem. I'am reading the licence and I see
what you said, I'am not allowed to ditribute ChunkSourceFiler and other
necessary classes. I will see if I write something or use a goodie I saw
at smalltalking.net that have similar behavior. As I undestand I'am
allowed to use and distribute the compiler. Thank you.

Diego

Diego,

> If I understand you well, you said that I should make an EXE with
> everything in it, and then activate its parts. But I see the limitation of
> not being able to add, not predicted parts. Thank you for your comments.

My concern is that as you add things not in the exe, you will get a soup
that could do some very confusing things.  I am much more comfortable
with the idea of deploying from an image (so all classes are the
"version") that passes tests.  From there, let InnoSetup or something
like it do the best it can at compressing the result.  Of course, if you
have users with slow connections, then you might have problems.  In my
case, I have a pathetic connection at home, but do most of my downloads
at work.

Have a good one,

Bill


--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

I don't have problems with the size of the application, I will distribute
it on CD. The problem I have to solve is that each installation will be
different one from the other, it could be seen as a different system en
each application. And also, during the time they will be changing. They
will be in different countries and circunstances.
In the classic paradigm of systems where you have program+data, it is
expected to have the same program(EXE)in each installation and complety
different data on each one. Having an ambient like Smalltalk I feel that
every installation is different, so that's why I see important to have
several alternatives to load behavior dynamically.
I'am not sure I understood what you mean about passing test.

Diego

DiegoC wrote:

> I want to install a package from a deployed EXE, and I've found that the
> PackageManager doesn´t work as I expected. Anyone knows if there is an
> easy way to do this?. The idea is to change an application while it's
> running (or at startup) adding classes, methods or resources. I guess it
> should be similar to using binary packages with the web applet

I suspect that using binary packages directly would be a better match for your
requirements than attempting to duplicate the functionality of the Package
system.

    -- chris

Chris,
Would you have any idea how I could do it?, I mean loading binary packages
from en exe?. Should I install the web depelopment kit?. Thank you !!!

Diego

"DiegoC" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> Blair, you are right, that's my problem. I'am reading the licence and I
> see
> what you said, I'am not allowed to ditribute ChunkSourceFiler and other
> necessary classes. I will see if I write something or use a goodie I saw
> at smalltalking.net that have similar behavior. As I undestand I'am
> allowed to use and distribute the compiler. Thank you.

I don't think we would necessarily have a problem with you distributing
ChunkSourceFiler, assuming you aren't distributing an application that makes
available the ability to do Smalltalk development to an end-user. Such an
application would require a special license.

Regards

Blair

DiegoC wrote:

> Would you have any idea how I could do it?, I mean loading binary packages
> from en exe?. Should I install the web depelopment kit?. Thank you !!!

You would need the web development kit, yes.

Andy recently posted a link to an example of an application that is designed to
load binary packages "in the field", in fact it is a simple framework like the
Java WebStart architecture.   The thread can be found here:


http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=40773ac9%40news.totallyobjects.com&rnum=1

Also, I've appended an extract from an old post of mine which may help a bit.

Whatever you do, you'll have to find some way to deal with methods from the
base image that are /only/ used by the dynamically-loaded add-ins, since the
default image stripper will probably remove them.  You could try to ensure
that they are included with the binary packages, or you could use an image
stripper that leaves the core classes untouched (which is what I think Andy's
"WebStart" does).  BTW, I think this is the best argument against dynamically
loading add-ins; Bill's suggestion of just including /all/ the "optional" code
in the deployed .exe and ignoring (or letting the garbage collector remove) the
unwanted code/objects has the advantage that you don't need to take special
care of the stripping process.

    -- chris

-------------------------------------------

Here's an example:

Create a new package, say called 'Temp'

Create a new class in that package, say called 'AAATemp'.

Give it a method:
==============
    AAATemp>>tryMe
        Notification signal: 'It worked'.
==============

In the package browser, select the package and "Deploy Binary Package".  You'll
be prompted for a "certificate", just click OK (which will deploy with no
certificate).  You should now have a 'AAATemp.pak' file.

Start a clean image, from it evaluate:
    cl := ClassLocator codeBase: '' packageName: 'Temp' key: 'AAATemp'.
    class := cl locateClass.

You'll be prompted for whether you want to "trust" the loaded code (with no
certificate).  Answer yes.

Now you can use your dynamically loaded class:

    class new tryMe.

should print 'It worked!' to the Transcript.

Chris,
Thank you very much!!!!!!!!, I will study it carefully. Another good news
is that I can use the ChunkReader from my application, what already
allowed me to do this using source packages. Perhaps for my solution
source packages would be better because I can add loose methods, that are
mostly what I will want to distribute. Anyway what you sent is very
usefull and me makes me think that I could use it to do remote updates or
things like that. Thank you again.
Diego

I don't want my users to make Smalltalk development, I want to use the
power that have Smalltalk for being updated while it's running, I will
write the code. Thank you for your comments. I already solving my problem
using the ChunkReader, I will write OA when finished to check if it's OK
what I have done. Distributions will start in 4 or 5 months, I think.

Diego