Integrating the TracingMessageBrowser to the standard image

Hello,

On 5/17/06, Herbert König <[hidden email]> wrote: Based on your recommandation, I installed the TMB on my 3.9 image.
It's a bit of a hassle to see all those 'ma' methods from magma, but
the functionality of the TMB is brilliant. It integrates very nicely
into the existing tools, and the way it works fits very nicely with
how the message browser already works in the standard image. I really
like it, thanks for your tip!

I nominate adding the TMB into the default image, what work is needed
to be done to get that in 3.9?

Duncan.

        "Perfection is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing more to take away." - Antoine De Saint-Exupery.


-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

On 5/17/06, Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>         "Perfection is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but when
> there is nothing more to take away." - Antoine De Saint-Exupery.
>

<Craig> I was just offering a different view
<Craig> make the module repository good and keep the release object memory small

I think Craig has a good point too.

I think John Pierce's setup script might be the right way to go:

    http://www.saltypickle.com/Home/18

Maybe the solution is to come up with a list of nice packages and make
a script out of them. The problem with publishing MC packages is that
it doesn't auto-install dependencies, (at least most packages don't do
it for me) so it's a pain to batch install a bunch of packages.

Also, what's with the Magma requirement? just seeing maPrefixed
methods makes me feel uneasy, I don't know why... I think Magma broke
an image of mine when I first started using Squeak.

Duncan.

> It's a bit of a hassle to see all those 'ma' methods from magma, but
 
 I would like to reiterate there is NO Magma code in the TMB.  Also, I don't get it, what is the "hassle"?

 If the community likes the TMB, I'll volunteer to help with whatever work is needed for 3.9 incorporation, including removing/renaming whatever methods you want.
 
 Regards,
   Chris
 
----- Original Message ----
From: Duncan Mak <[hidden email]>
To: Herbert König <[hidden email]>; The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:45:15 AM
Subject: Integrating the TracingMessageBrowser to the standard image

Hello,

On 5/17/06, Herbert König <[hidden email]> wrote:
Based on your recommandation, I installed the TMB on my 3.9 image.
It's a bit of a hassle to see all those 'ma' methods from magma, but
the functionality of the TMB is brilliant. It integrates very nicely
into the existing tools, and the way it works fits very nicely with
how the message browser already works in the standard image. I really
like it, thanks for your tip!

I nominate adding the TMB into the default image, what work is needed
to be done to get that in 3.9?

Duncan.

Well, perfection was anything but my goal here, just productivity.  I presume this refers to "not adding more code".  It's not that much.
 
 What about this angle; "let's not add more windows to the desktop.."?
 
 

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Latta <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:49:29 PM
Subject: re: Integrating the TracingMessageBrowser to the standard image


    "Perfection is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing more to take away." - Antoine De Saint-Exupery.


-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

> Also, what's with the Magma requirement? just seeing maPrefixed
methods makes me feel uneasy, I don't know why... I think Magma broke
an image of mine when I first started using Squeak.


 Again, no Magma requirement.  Magma is nowhere in sight here.  "ma" does not mean Magma.
 
 The "ma" method prefixes are, quite simply, a namespace.  I was only trying to be polite by not hogging the namespace with my interpretation of general names like:
 
  Bag>>#maRemoveAll
     "Efficiently removes all elements in the receiver."
     ...
 
 instead of
 
   Bag>>#removeAll
 
 So you can be assured that loading any of MY stuff should never stomp anything else you have loaded, whether it was "polite" with its own prefix or not.
 
 It's an ugly compromise to assure future interoperability with other code.  It was designed to make you feel MORE assured but it has apparently had the opposite effect; heh, probably because its "different" I presume..
 
 Regards,
   Chris
 

>Well, perfection was anything but my goal here, just productivity.  I presume this refers to "not adding more code".  It's not that much.
>
> What about this angle; "let's not add more windows to the desktop.."?
>
>
>  
>
I really like it :)

It doesnt change the overall browsing system and can be unselected from
the preferences...

To me this can be added :)

Cédrick

we could add it to 3.9 dev image (after the release)
Now what is important is that the browser does not override behavior  
so that
hidden dependency do not creep in.

Stef

On 17 mai 06, at 18:44, Duncan Mak wrote: