Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Re: [Vm-dev] preferred methodology for handling Pharo'isms on Squeak?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Nicolas Cellier

Re: [Vm-dev] preferred methodology for handling Pharo'isms on Squeak?

2014-05-10 20:27 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:

Hi Tty,

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, gettimothy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi All.

Is there a preferred methodology for handling Pharo-isms on Squeak?

I know Seaside has Grease which does some of that, but I don't thing we want Grease for CMakeVMMaker (or do we).

Specifically, the Pharo team has abstracted out some stuff in SmalltalkImage (vm, platform..) that does not exist in Squeak.

If there is an existing mechanism for bridging this gap, I will use it.

In the meantime, I will be DTSTTCW.

+1. But I recommend a compatibility package that is loaded alongside to provide the missing support in Squeak. Then methods (& classes) can be moved from there into Squeak when we see fit.

The biggest source of differences is usage of FileSystem.

FileSystem was originally written by Colin Putney in Squeak, so it should work well in Squeak.

IMO, the best thing would be to integrate FileSystem in Squeak.

However the Pharo team has significantly modified the API.
So now there is a dilemna: which FileSystem should we include in Squeak?

I'm for integrating the version of Pharo, in order to reduce the gratuitous differences.

Unless there are reasons for not doing so.

We should ask Colin, not sure if he follow this list, so I cross post on Squeak-dev.

cordially,

tty

--
best,
Eliot

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: [Vm-dev] preferred methodology for handling Pharo'isms on Squeak?

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]> wrote:

2014-05-10 20:27 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>:

Hi Tty,

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, gettimothy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi All.

Is there a preferred methodology for handling Pharo-isms on Squeak?

I know Seaside has Grease which does some of that, but I don't thing we want Grease for CMakeVMMaker (or do we).

Specifically, the Pharo team has abstracted out some stuff in SmalltalkImage (vm, platform..) that does not exist in Squeak.

If there is an existing mechanism for bridging this gap, I will use it.

In the meantime, I will be DTSTTCW.

+1. But I recommend a compatibility package that is loaded alongside to provide the missing support in Squeak. Then methods (& classes) can be moved from there into Squeak when we see fit.

The biggest source of differences is usage of FileSystem.
FileSystem was originally written by Colin Putney in Squeak, so it should work well in Squeak.

IMO, the best thing would be to integrate FileSystem in Squeak.

+1. I *loathe* using the old FileStream/FileDirectory crud but they're what's there.

However the Pharo team has significantly modified the API.

So now there is a dilemna: which FileSystem should we include in Squeak?

We should try and merge no? Presumably the Pharo changes come form their actually using FileSystem in anger. It would be great to get it into Squeak for 4.6/5.

I'm for integrating the version of Pharo, in order to reduce the gratuitous differences.

Unless there are reasons for not doing so.

Makes sense. And there's a test suite.

We should ask Colin, not sure if he follow this list, so I cross post on Squeak-dev.

cordially,

tty

--
best,

Eliot

Tobias Pape

Re: Re: [squeak-dev] [Vm-dev] preferred methodology for handling Pharo'isms on Squeak?

On 10.05.2014, at 21:05, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We should try and merge no? Presumably the Pharo changes come form their actually using FileSystem in anger. It would be great to get it into Squeak for 4.6/5.
>

+n

Really, would make some seaside loadings a lot easier.
best
-tobias

signature.asc (1K) Download Attachment