Questions about ToolSet
Locked
Questions about ToolSet
 
|
Hi folks. I found I big problem with the way ToolSet works or at least with the way I think it works. Right now, there is the class ToolSet with certain methods like API and then a class side method to register a XXX ToolSet as default. So, we have for example, the StandardToolSet which implements/overrides some of the methods of ToolSet. Of course, that ToolSet (StandardToolSet) is the default. Evaluate ToolSet default and you will get that one. Becuase that is done is StandardToolSet class >> initialize
Now...the first question, why StandardToolSet doesn't extend from ToolSet ? shouldn't that be better ? Anyway, this is the big problem. The only way right now to change the toolset is to create a new class and register it. Suppose I want to install NewInspector and put in the ToolSet that now, the inspector to use is NewInspector instead of old Inspector. The only way I see right now is to create new class and implement the method inspectorClassOf: As you can see, NewInspector had to do that in class NewInspectorToolSet. They had to create that class just to implement that method and register it... Now, suppose I want to install shout, and I want to say that the default workspace is SHWorkspace (shout one), not the normal one. Ok...easy, I do the same of the NewInspector (but changing the method openWorkspace instead of inspectorClassOf:) ....but...I cannot register 2 toolsets. So, I have or NewInspectorToolSet or ShoutToolSet. Of course, this has no sense AT ALL. So, my proposal is to change ToolSet, so that any tool can change certain things, without needing to do that. Examples: For example, in StandardToolSet, we have: StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace Workspace open I would change that for something like: StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName) open Of course Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName must be initialized the first time with something like Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: Workspace I don't like the name WorkspaceClassName, we should look for better names. Then, I can just have a post do it when loading Shout that evaluates: (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: SHWorkspace) Here there is no need to create subclasses neither to register a new toolset. Ok...this is an example, but the idea is to apply this to most cases. What do you think ? Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
As long as you make it no harder for me to use the old
inspector, I'm open to just about anything. No arguement that toolsets in
their current form are strange.
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mariano Martinez Peck Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:00 PM To: Pharo Development Subject: [Pharo-project] Questions about ToolSet Now...the first question, why StandardToolSet doesn't extend from ToolSet ? shouldn't that be better ? Anyway, this is the big problem. The only way right now to change the toolset is to create a new class and register it. Suppose I want to install NewInspector and put in the ToolSet that now, the inspector to use is NewInspector instead of old Inspector. The only way I see right now is to create new class and implement the method inspectorClassOf: As you can see, NewInspector had to do that in class NewInspectorToolSet. They had to create that class just to implement that method and register it... Now, suppose I want to install shout, and I want to say that the default workspace is SHWorkspace (shout one), not the normal one. Ok...easy, I do the same of the NewInspector (but changing the method openWorkspace instead of inspectorClassOf:) ....but...I cannot register 2 toolsets. So, I have or NewInspectorToolSet or ShoutToolSet. Of course, this has no sense AT ALL. So, my proposal is to change ToolSet, so that any tool can change certain things, without needing to do that. Examples: For example, in StandardToolSet, we have: StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace Workspace open I would change that for something like: StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName) open Of course Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName must be initialized the first time with something like Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: Workspace I don't like the name WorkspaceClassName, we should look for better names. Then, I can just have a post do it when loading Shout that evaluates: (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: SHWorkspace) Here there is no need to create subclasses neither to register a new toolset. Ok...this is an example, but the idea is to apply this to most cases. What do you think ? Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: Questions about ToolSet
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
Hi, Mariano
I also confronted this problem when I was writing some extension of NewInspector. And I agree, the current process of registering of new tools is ugly. I solved the problem with writing some code, which created an anonymous class which merged behaviour of all the tool sets passed to it as arguments and installed this class as default tool set. Tricky way, but it worked, IIRC :). But I think there should be cleaner way. Maybe something similar to what you propose, but without introducing new names in the global namespace. Maybe we can do define all those tool classes as class variables and define a protocol in ToolSet or StandardToolSet to install (and maybe even use new settings framework to do it)? What do you think? George 2010/2/3 Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]>: > Hi folks. I found I big problem with the way ToolSet works or at least with > the way I think it works. Right now, there is the class ToolSet with > certain methods like API and then a class side method to register a XXX > ToolSet as default. So, we have for example, the StandardToolSet which > implements/overrides some of the methods of ToolSet. Of course, that ToolSet > (StandardToolSet) is the default. Evaluate ToolSet default and you will get > that one. Becuase that is done is StandardToolSet class >> initialize > > Now...the first question, why StandardToolSet doesn't extend from ToolSet > ? shouldn't that be better ? > > Anyway, this is the big problem. The only way right now to change the > toolset is to create a new class and register it. Suppose I want to install > NewInspector and put in the ToolSet that now, the inspector to use is > NewInspector instead of old Inspector. The only way I see right now is to > create new class and implement the method inspectorClassOf: As you can > see, NewInspector had to do that in class NewInspectorToolSet. They had to > create that class just to implement that method and register it... > > Now, suppose I want to install shout, and I want to say that the default > workspace is SHWorkspace (shout one), not the normal one. Ok...easy, I do > the same of the NewInspector (but changing the method openWorkspace instead > of inspectorClassOf:) ....but...I cannot register 2 toolsets. So, I have or > NewInspectorToolSet or ShoutToolSet. Of course, this has no sense AT ALL. > > So, my proposal is to change ToolSet, so that any tool can change certain > things, without needing to do that. Examples: > > For example, in StandardToolSet, we have: > > StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace > Workspace open > > I would change that for something like: > > > StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace > (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName) open > > Of course Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName must be initialized the first > time with something like Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: Workspace > > I don't like the name WorkspaceClassName, we should look for better names. > > Then, I can just have a post do it when loading Shout that evaluates: > > (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: SHWorkspace) > > Here there is no need to create subclasses neither to register a new > toolset. > > Ok...this is an example, but the idea is to apply this to most cases. > > What do you think ? > > Mariano > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Hi,
I think that introducing more global state is not a good idea. I believe a cleaner solution would be to create have ToolSet default return an instance of a ToolSetImplementation, and then create a instance variables in the ToolSetImplementation for these tools and let me customize it from outside. Like this you do not create unnecessary global state. Cheers, Doru On 3 Feb 2010, at 09:11, George Herolyants wrote: > Hi, Mariano > > I also confronted this problem when I was writing some extension of > NewInspector. And I agree, the current process of registering of new > tools is ugly. I solved the problem with writing some code, which > created an anonymous class which merged behaviour of all the tool sets > passed to it as arguments and installed this class as default tool > set. Tricky way, but it worked, IIRC :). > > But I think there should be cleaner way. Maybe something similar to > what you propose, but without introducing new names in the global > namespace. Maybe we can do define all those tool classes as class > variables and define a protocol in ToolSet or StandardToolSet to > install (and maybe even use new settings framework to do it)? > > What do you think? > > George > > 2010/2/3 Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]>: >> Hi folks. I found I big problem with the way ToolSet works or at >> least with >> the way I think it works. Right now, there is the class ToolSet with >> certain methods like API and then a class side method to register a >> XXX >> ToolSet as default. So, we have for example, the StandardToolSet >> which >> implements/overrides some of the methods of ToolSet. Of course, >> that ToolSet >> (StandardToolSet) is the default. Evaluate ToolSet default and you >> will get >> that one. Becuase that is done is StandardToolSet class >> initialize >> >> Now...the first question, why StandardToolSet doesn't extend from >> ToolSet >> ? shouldn't that be better ? >> >> Anyway, this is the big problem. The only way right now to change the >> toolset is to create a new class and register it. Suppose I want to >> install >> NewInspector and put in the ToolSet that now, the inspector to use is >> NewInspector instead of old Inspector. The only way I see right now >> is to >> create new class and implement the method inspectorClassOf: As >> you can >> see, NewInspector had to do that in class NewInspectorToolSet. They >> had to >> create that class just to implement that method and register it... >> >> Now, suppose I want to install shout, and I want to say that the >> default >> workspace is SHWorkspace (shout one), not the normal one. >> Ok...easy, I do >> the same of the NewInspector (but changing the method openWorkspace >> instead >> of inspectorClassOf:) ....but...I cannot register 2 toolsets. So, I >> have or >> NewInspectorToolSet or ShoutToolSet. Of course, this has no sense >> AT ALL. >> >> So, my proposal is to change ToolSet, so that any tool can change >> certain >> things, without needing to do that. Examples: >> >> For example, in StandardToolSet, we have: >> >> StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace >> Workspace open >> >> I would change that for something like: >> >> >> StandardToolSet >> openWorkspace >> (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName) open >> >> Of course Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName must be initialized >> the first >> time with something like Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: >> Workspace >> >> I don't like the name WorkspaceClassName, we should look for better >> names. >> >> Then, I can just have a post do it when loading Shout that evaluates: >> >> (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: SHWorkspace) >> >> Here there is no need to create subclasses neither to register a new >> toolset. >> >> Ok...this is an example, but the idea is to apply this to most cases. >> >> What do you think ? >> >> Mariano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- www.tudorgirba.com "It's not what we do that matters most, it's how we do it." _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: Questions about ToolSet
|
|
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, and accessors :) . Like this you do not create Thanks Doru!!! I like much more my suggestion. Actually it was just what I come to mind at that time. The real purpose was to see if other people agree there is a problem in ToolSet. Thanks! I created the issue http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1915 Now, when someone have time, can hack there :) Cheers, _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi folks. I found I big problem with the way ToolSet works or at least with the way I think it works. Right now, there is the class ToolSet with certain methods like API and then a class side method to register a XXX ToolSet as default. So, we have for example, the StandardToolSet which implements/overrides some of the methods of ToolSet. Of course, that ToolSet (StandardToolSet) is the default. Evaluate ToolSet default and you will get that one. Becuase that is done is StandardToolSet class >> initialize > > Now...the first question, why StandardToolSet doesn't extend from ToolSet ? shouldn't that be better ? Apparently what you want is a kind of factory ToolSet is a facade StandardToolSet is an adaptor making the glue between the protocol of ToolSet and the actual tools. So delegation is not that bad. now by adding a inheritance relationship we could reuse default code when possible. inspectorClassOf: anObject "Answer the inspector class for the given object. The tool set must know which inspector type to use for which object - the object cannot possibly know what kind of inspectors the toolset provides." self default ifNil:[^nil]. ^self default inspectorClassOf: anObject the self default ifNil: [^nil] looks also suspicious. > I don't like the name WorkspaceClassName, we should look for better names > Then, I can just have a post do it when loading Shout that evaluates: > > (Smalltalk at: #WorkspaceClassName put: SHWorkspace) I like the suggestion of doru. ToolSet should have a way to registering new tools to specific protocol and that you can access and change a given set. One of the problem is that it can be easy if all the tools kind (all debuggers) agree to follow the same interface to get opened.... Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |