Packager Doesn't Work

Andy wrote:

> I forgot to mention that there is an easier way to repackage items (like
> loose methods) especially if there are several of them. Try selecting the
> conflicting items in the dependencies (lower) pane of the prerequisites
tab.
> Then use the "Package.." context menu command to move them to the
> appropriate package. The dialog that appears will suggest (usually) the
best
> package to move them to and will do it in one operation.

Not always.  I have three loose methods preventing me from saving my package
and selecting the suggested package as above doesn't solve the problem.  One
of these methods is a simple initialize method with statements like oc :=
OrderedCollection new.

PLEASE return to the Digitalk packager, based on FileIn and FileOut.  Can
anybody send me a copy that will work with D5?  My package has too many
classes to enjoy using FileIn and FileOut on each individually.  But I have
taken that approach when sending out partially filled classes for an
employee to work on.

(Perhaps I was too hasty earlier in saying the Dolphin packager isn't the
blackest software in 100 years...)  Many refactoring features in V.5 are
great improvements but the Packager is one of the worst examples of
programming I've seen since I graduated in 1982 or Smalltalk since I bought
Digitalk/V in 1987.  I doubt that there are thousands of people who use the
packager without problems.  I'd bet many just don't use it, or luck out and
have cycles which they can persuade D.5 to accept.

> Since the packages are a source code format (indeed they are actually in
> standard chunk file format) it is not easily possible for Dolphin to load
> them in two passes. If we could scan all the packages in the chain for
> required variables and define these first before performing the second
> loading and compilation pass then we could avoid the "cyclic
prerequisites"
> issue. However, that is not part of the design and, since it is often
> trivial to remove the cycles, it shouldn't really be a concern.

Why did you decide to make a design decision which reflects so poorly on
your company?  "Since it is "often" trivial to remove?"  So what if it works
98% of the time -- what about the other 2% or so?  I'm grateful OA rose up
to fill Digitalk's vacuum but try to make EVERYTHING better for your
customers, not just Refactoring.

"Lansdale" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:tq0ba.19852$[hidden email]...

I find the current packager very nice, but your post was exceptionaly rude
and plainly unjust.

rush
--
http://www.templatetamer.com/

"Lansdale" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:tq0ba.19852$[hidden email]...
> Folks, Do you really want to follow the advice of someone who
> was convicted of assault 4 and who is a religious kook?
>
> Take a look at these web pages...
...

I am not sure how this is in any way relevant to Kirk's comments regarding
the Dolphin Packager.  I don't generally find it necessary to run background
checks on every poster to decide if he or she is a "good person" to
determine if their post has technical merit.  Someone who ambushes a post
using criteria totally unrelated to their post seems a little kooky to me.
In endeavoring to impugn Kirk you impugn your self more.  Please don't
pollute our nice group with this silliness.

Chris

"Kirk W. Fraser" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:kcjaa.33294$A%[hidden email]...
...
> PLEASE return to the Digitalk packager, based on FileIn and FileOut.  Can
> anybody send me a copy that will work with D5?  My package has too many
> classes to enjoy using FileIn and FileOut on each individually.  But I
have
> taken that approach when sending out partially filled classes for an
> employee to work on.

You can write one your self without too much trouble.  I recall having to
write one, or at least enhance the one in Digitalk to support proper
reloading of a multi class file out. Take a look at my CJDCodeExtractor
package here http://www.mitchellscientific.com/smalltalk/ .  It may be a
jumping off point for something that will suite your needs.

> (Perhaps I was too hasty earlier in saying the Dolphin packager isn't the
> blackest software in 100 years...)  Many refactoring features in V.5 are
...
> Why did you decide to make a design decision which reflects so poorly on
> your company?  "Since it is "often" trivial to remove?"  So what if it
works
> 98% of the time -- what about the other 2% or so?  I'm grateful OA rose up
> to fill Digitalk's vacuum but try to make EVERYTHING better for your
> customers, not just Refactoring.

I think you could have used a more tactful way of communicating your
concerns rather than insulting their design decision and company.  Every
design decision has trade-offs.  The package system in Dolphin was designed
to be used a certain way.  Many people seem to be happy with that.
Personally I am not happy with the cyclic package reference limitations.  I
mentioned that in this group (or the pre-USENET group) before and do not
recall many people agreed with me then.  It does seem that most people are
happy with the current package system and its limitations.  Maybe that will
change over time.  In the meantime I will continue developing goodies that
enhance the way I like to work.  Perhaps one day I will change the way I
work.  I think there are potential organizational benefits to not having
cyclic prerequisites.  However right now it is more important for me to not
have to stop and worry about that.

Chris

"Kirk W. Fraser" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:sAbba.33363$A%[hidden email]... posts
> I found by searching Google on "lansdale optonline."  In fact I've
received
> several instances of spam which contained that term, "optonline" which had
> fraudulent removal links.
>
>

This is off topic, please take it (and preferably yourself) elsewhere.

Blair

"Kirk W. Fraser" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:4hnba.33380$A%[hidden email]...
...
> "Christopher J. Demers" <[hidden email]> wrote
> > I think you could have used a more tactful way of communicating your
> > concerns rather than insulting their design decision and company.
>
> For this audience, no.  The message was crafted with definite intentional
> design choices, based on prior Object-Arts reactions: Andy responded to a
> single person spewing some insults by removing Dolphin 2.1 from free
> download status.  In trying to get the packager problems fixed earlier, I
...

Impolite people are often added to "twit filters".  When an impolite person
needs help in the future it may fall upon deaf ears.

Chris