Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
Locked
1234
1234
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
 
|
Hi Sven,
[cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html ... etc ... As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. Summary: * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. Cheers, - Andreas On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > Andreas, > > The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: > > Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 > Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe > Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm > UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 > Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 > > merged in pharo-core 1.2 > > We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. > > A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. > > As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. > > Regards, > > Sven > > On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >> >> Hi Sven, >> >> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >> >> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >> much attention. >> >> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >> >> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >> simply incorrect. >> >> Thanks, >> - Andreas >> >> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> Hi Andreas, >>> >>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>> >>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>> >>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>> >>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>> >>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>> >>> ================================================ >>> >>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>> Failures: >>> >>> Errors: >>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>> >>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>> >>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
Hi andreas
1- We talked a lot about Webclient used in the Pharo mailing-list and we were stupid to think that you read it. Luckily you did it at last. 2- I'm also surprised that nobody checked the license (me the first). Shit happens even with the best attitude. We are paying attention to contributor and we learned something today. 3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. Apparently not so this is good. 4- We want to have a good web library in Pharo, so this will not webclient. I do not believe that this is good to build any software on libraries that have an unclear license. At least I would not do it just to avoid to get trap in it. 5- We will remove (by today) WebClient from Pharo. 6- Pharoers will have to decide and probably to build an open one under MIT. 6- Some people do not like that they cannot improve the code they see and use daily. 7- This is your right to criticize the code quality and design of Pharo, there is no problem with that. We have another point of view after the years we spent. Now they may be some little glitches and if you have precise feedback we are open to hear them. We are working working working and ... working on it and we are improving everyday -- may be too slowly. Stef > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Andreas, >> >> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >> >> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >> >> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >> >> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >> >> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >> >> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >> >> Regards, >> >> Sven >> >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >> >>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>> >>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>> much attention. >>> >>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>> >>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>> simply incorrect. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>> >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>> >>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>> >>>> ================================================ >>>> >>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>> Failures: >>>> >>>> Errors: >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>> >>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>> >>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Sven and philippe
I was wondering what was the license of your submissions to webClient. Because this will be also a problem. Either you totally give it to andreas and he can do what he wants with it, or you retain the right on the code and andreas has to decide what he will do with it. Since you can change the license of your code I imagine that andreas will not include any code if the code is not given to him. Funny situation. I think that it is even more confusing than with the old Squeak-L. Stef On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Andreas, >> >> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >> >> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >> >> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >> >> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >> >> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >> >> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >> >> Regards, >> >> Sven >> >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >> >>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>> >>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>> much attention. >>> >>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>> >>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>> simply incorrect. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>> >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>> >>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>> >>>> ================================================ >>>> >>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>> Failures: >>>> >>>> Errors: >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>> >>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>> >>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
I fully agree with Stef.
I don't remember why I assumed the license was MIT, maybe because on Andreas' blog it says: "we now have what I think is a pretty decent HTTP server and client implementation for Squeak 4.1". Isn't the missing license an issue for Squeak? Anyway, obviously its a no-go not only for Pharo but also for companies (like us at Cmsbox, who considered using WebClient in the future). Cheers, Adrian Zitat von Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: > Hi andreas > > 1- We talked a lot about Webclient used in the Pharo mailing-list and > we were stupid to think that you read it. Luckily you did it at last. > 2- I'm also surprised that nobody checked the license (me the first). > Shit happens even with the best attitude. We are paying attention to > contributor and > we learned something today. > 3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, > sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. > Apparently not > so this is good. > 4- We want to have a good web library in Pharo, so this will not > webclient. I do not believe that this is good to build any > software on libraries that have an unclear license. At least I would > not do it just to avoid to get trap in it. > 5- We will remove (by today) WebClient from Pharo. > 6- Pharoers will have to decide and probably to build an open one under MIT. > 6- Some people do not like that they cannot improve the code they see > and use daily. > 7- This is your right to criticize the code quality and design of > Pharo, there is no problem with that. We have another point of view > after the years we spent. Now they may be some little glitches and if > you have precise feedback we are open to hear them. > We are working working working and ... working on it and we are > improving everyday -- may be too slowly. > > Stef > > >> Hi Sven, >> >> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >> >> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It >> is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a >> bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient >> in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some >> of the discussions on the Pharo list. >> >> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages >> in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) >> checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the >> author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include >> your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of >> the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue >> about what you're doing). >> >> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the >> following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >> ... etc ... >> >> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try >> to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page >> of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, >> for example, the following repositories: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >> >> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as >> clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out >> that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of >> WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that >> apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license >> status for WebClient is. >> >> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind >> that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past >> only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and >> myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this >> is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of >> WebClient in Pharo to me. >> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not >> more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically >> didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any >> prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there >> would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that >> you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > >> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an >> external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In >> fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to >> begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include >> (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a >> perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it >> should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a >> look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket >> implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's >> loaded. >> >> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I >> haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the >> places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and >> #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter >> new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make >> the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of >> Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, >> you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that >> not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, >> I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide >> important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without >> which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >> >> Summary: >> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no >> due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in >> particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site >> that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule >> that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I >> haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo >> board?) >> >> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means >> you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is >> counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a >> shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available >> to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >> >> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as >> long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also >> provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really >> just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas >> >> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> Andreas, >>> >>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>> >>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>> >>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>> >>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>> >>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic >>> and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by >>> using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the >>> current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, >>> makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over >>> again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and >>> harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>> >>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your >>> standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even >>> other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much >>> work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint >>> is. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>> >>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> - Andreas >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Hi Sven, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>> >>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>> much attention. >>>> >>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>> >>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>> simply incorrect. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> - Andreas >>>> >>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run >>>>> it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>> >>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to >>>>> project A Day At The Beach: >>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>>> >>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>> >>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>> >>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the >>>>> different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of >>>>> #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in >>>>> WebClient>>connect >>>>> >>>>> ================================================ >>>>> >>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 >>>>> unexpected passes >>>>> Failures: >>>>> >>>>> Errors: >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>> >>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>> >>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>> >>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi pharoers
What do you think? I think that we should not have any software parts whose license is not set clearly in Pharo. So I will remove WebClient from Pharo. I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. Stef On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Andreas, >> >> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >> >> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >> >> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >> >> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >> >> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >> >> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >> >> Regards, >> >> Sven >> >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >> >>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>> >>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>> much attention. >>> >>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>> >>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>> simply incorrect. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Hi Andreas, >>>> >>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>> >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>> >>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>> >>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>> >>>> ================================================ >>>> >>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>> Failures: >>>> >>>> Errors: >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>> >>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>> >>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
A final point:
I can understand that andreas does not want to get fork. I understand that he can think that we are stealing code. I think that this is fair to think that. Now as miguel mentioned about SPDF, the solution is in the process: one way to avoid fork is to be open to other changes and to get a real review process and some compromise. We should have contacted him publicly but we still have some communication problems :) This is a long period of time since we did not said any "vicious", I personally prefer positive energy and I'm ranting clean. Pharo is my red pil. :) Now I think that not putting license is not a solution that can scale but this is his choice. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi pharoers It can still be maintained as an external package and it seems it's Andreas intent. Anyway, WebClient must have a licence. No licence means nobody can use it (even Squeak). So I would like to know the licence before any decision.
PS: I don't understand the '(code) forks are evil' statement, I think it encourages "project forks" and closes contribution. This currently happens it seems.
Reminds me the squeak-vm on github thread ..... Laurent I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Lienhard
Adrian
Same for squeakSSL. :) Stef On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:03 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I fully agree with Stef. > > I don't remember why I assumed the license was MIT, maybe because on > Andreas' blog it says: "we now have what I think is a pretty decent HTTP > server and client implementation for Squeak 4.1". Isn't the missing > license an issue for Squeak? Anyway, obviously its a no-go not only for > Pharo but also for companies (like us at Cmsbox, who considered using > WebClient in the future). > > Cheers, > Adrian > > Zitat von Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi andreas >> >> 1- We talked a lot about Webclient used in the Pharo mailing-list and we were stupid to think that you read it. Luckily you did it at last. >> 2- I'm also surprised that nobody checked the license (me the first). Shit happens even with the best attitude. We are paying attention to contributor and >> we learned something today. >> 3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. Apparently not >> so this is good. >> 4- We want to have a good web library in Pharo, so this will not webclient. I do not believe that this is good to build any >> software on libraries that have an unclear license. At least I would not do it just to avoid to get trap in it. >> 5- We will remove (by today) WebClient from Pharo. >> 6- Pharoers will have to decide and probably to build an open one under MIT. >> 6- Some people do not like that they cannot improve the code they see and use daily. >> 7- This is your right to criticize the code quality and design of Pharo, there is no problem with that. We have another point of view >> after the years we spent. Now they may be some little glitches and if you have precise feedback we are open to hear them. >> We are working working working and ... working on it and we are improving everyday -- may be too slowly. >> >> Stef >> >> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >>> >>> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. >>> >>> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). >>> >>> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >>> ... etc ... >>> >>> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >>> >>> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. >>> >>> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. >>> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. >> >>> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. >>> >>> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >>> >>> Summary: >>> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) >>> >>> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >>> >>> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Andreas, >>>> >>>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>>> >>>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>>> >>>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>>> >>>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>>> >>>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>>> >>>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sven, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>>> >>>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>>> much attention. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>>> simply incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>>>> >>>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>>> >>>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>>>> >>>>>> ================================================ >>>>>> >>>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>>>> Failures: >>>>>> >>>>>> Errors: >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>>> >>>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi Andreas,
I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it). Can you please clarify the license situation of those projects? Best regards, Johan On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
<ESUG> A little advertisement:
Cincom pushed the idea to have a lawyer at ESUG to explain such kind of points, there will be a panel with Julian Fitzel, Bert Freudenberg so we will all learn. Prepare your questions. </ESUG> On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it). > Can you please clarify the license situation of those projects? > > Best regards, > Johan > > > On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >> >> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for clarifying your position and for pointing out the lack of a proper license for WebClient code. I and other people in the Pharo community made a mistake and we're sorry. We will be more careful in the future. But to our defense, as others pointed out, you're communications gave the impression that this was true open source, compatible with the standard Squeak one in spirit. Futhermore, and this to your credit as well, you yourself wrote the WebClient-Pharo package, giving the impression that you valued that port. It also proves that you did the actual effort. Thanks you! And indeed, you did incorporate some changes, so the intention was certainly there. Now, I would not say that we already actually forked the code. We just tried to port it. The process of following your progress proved difficult (you probably made a diff between your and our latest versions), precisely because of some of these little things like #asString, #utf8Encoding, #and:and:and:and:, but also some deeper ones like #pathForFile that kept coming back. You have every right to refuse to follow the Pharo Smalltalk spirit or style. I respect that, and the Pharo community as a whole should too. But your refusal to do so and the lack of a license give us no alternative than to look for other solutions. I wasn't there when the discussion that let to the birth of Pharo took place. But it is clear that the Smalltalk community is too small to not work together. The Smalltalk-80 inheritance and the enormeous contributions of the Squeak community over the years should be respected by all. At the same time you cannot ignore the positive effect that Pharo had since then. For me and many others, Pharo definitively has its place, along many other viable Smalltalk implementations. Regards, Sven On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hi Sven, > > [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] > > First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. > > May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). > > 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html > ... etc ... > > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. > > 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. > > In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. > > Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. > > Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. > > Summary: > * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) > > * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. > > * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. > > Cheers, > - Andreas _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
---- On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:24:37 -0700 Stéphane Ducasse wrote ---- >3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. Apparently not >so this is good. Andreas was having mail issues. A few days ago I emailed him a small WebClient package after discussing a feature with him on Squeak-Dev. I left a note on the mailing list telling him about it, and he replied saying that he never got it. I sent it again, and he informed me after doing some digging that it and other emails bearing attachments had gotten caught in his spam filter. If you don't get a response from him, send your email again or leave a message on Squeak-Dev. Andreas has shown a great willingness to cooperate and accept patches to make WebClient cross-compatible with Pharo. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi pharoers > > What do you think? > I think that we should not have any software parts whose license is not set clearly in Pharo. > So I will remove WebClient from Pharo. > I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. Why do you have to have your "own" library? What's wrong with one that could be shared by all Squeak forks? Levente > > Stef > > > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > >> Hi Sven, >> >> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >> >> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. >> >> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). >> >> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >> ... etc ... >> >> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >> >> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >> >> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. >> >> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. >> >> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. >> >> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. >> >> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >> >> Summary: >> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) >> >> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >> >> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas >> >> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>> Andreas, >>> >>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>> >>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>> >>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>> >>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>> >>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>> >>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>> >>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> - Andreas >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Hi Sven, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>> >>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>> much attention. >>>> >>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>> >>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>> simply incorrect. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> - Andreas >>>> >>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>> >>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>>> >>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>> >>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>> >>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>>> >>>>> ================================================ >>>>> >>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>>> Failures: >>>>> >>>>> Errors: >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>> >>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>> >>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>> >>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by jaayer
ok
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:01 PM, jaayer wrote: > > > ---- On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:24:37 -0700 Stéphane Ducasse wrote ---- > >> 3- Philippe contacted you with fixes several times and got no reply, sven too so people thought that you do not want to talk to them. Apparently not >> so this is good. > > Andreas was having mail issues. A few days ago I emailed him a small WebClient package after discussing a feature with him on Squeak-Dev. I left a note on the mailing list telling him about it, and he replied saying that he never got it. I sent it again, and he informed me after doing some digging that it and other emails bearing attachments had gotten caught in his spam filter. > > If you don't get a response from him, send your email again or leave a message on Squeak-Dev. Andreas has shown a great willingness to cooperate and accept patches to make WebClient cross-compatible with Pharo. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
>>
>> I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. > > Why do you have to have your "own" library? Did I say "pharo library"? reread carefully I said an "open-source one". This is not our own library, this is a library we can contribute, control.... We do not want to be in the situation that somebody can change the license under our feet. We want a library where people can participate. Now Pharoers will decide, I think that we do not have problem with sharing on WebClient. I can understand that people do not like that they cannot improve an infrastructure that they will rely upon. We do not want string to number conversion, and rely on squeakToUtf. Now I was not even aware of the ConfigurationOfWebClient. There is none in the squeaksource repository. So how can we guess? I'm not reading squeak-dev and no idea that there is even somebody using metacello. > What's wrong with one that could be shared by all Squeak forks? We do not have problem with sharing. You can take anything you like from Pharo. Seaside, Magritte, Pier, RB,.... are all MIT OB is MIT and lukas pushed it a lot recently for everybody. Moose is BSD, MIT, Glamour, Mondrian MIT ... and I'm sure that they are more. :) they are all external projects. We discussed on the mailing-list what to do and people thought that it would be good to get in included it. Probably we missed the point that we just need SocketStream to load the rest. I'm dull but learning everyday. For me I just cannot stand HTTPSocket and the network package so anything is better. But may be it was a mistake. Note that I hope that squeakers will not bash us as the guys that want to play it alone because this is not the case, but people can bash us if this helps them to feel good. Pharo is there for that too ;D. WebClient was the perfect case for sharing but Andreas decided differently. Now - since the license is unclear - since the license of the contributors is unclear we will not use it as an infrastructural assets for Pharo. I imagine that Seaside will not use it either. Stef > Levente > >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: >> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >>> >>> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. >>> >>> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). >>> >>> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >>> ... etc ... >>> >>> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >>> >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >>> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >>> >>> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. >>> >>> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. >>> >>> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. >>> >>> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. >>> >>> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >>> >>> Summary: >>> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) >>> >>> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >>> >>> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - Andreas >>> >>> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>> Andreas, >>>> >>>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>>> >>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>>> >>>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>>> >>>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>>> >>>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>>> >>>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>>> >>>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sven, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>>> >>>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>>> much attention. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>>> simply incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Andreas >>>>> >>>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>>>> >>>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>>> >>>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>>> >>>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>>>> >>>>>> ================================================ >>>>>> >>>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>>>> Failures: >>>>>> >>>>>> Errors: >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>>> >>>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> >>> I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. >> >> Why do you have to have your "own" library? > > Did I say "pharo library"? reread carefully I said an "open-source one". What I get from Andreas' words is that he's willing to make it open source if it won't be forked. > This is not our own library, this is a library we can contribute, control.... You can contribute to WebClient, but you don't have full control, just like any external packages. > We do not want to be in the situation that somebody can change the license under our feet. > We want a library where people can participate. Now Pharoers will decide, I think that we do not have problem > with sharing on WebClient. I can understand that people do not like that they cannot improve an infrastructure > that they will rely upon. We do not want string to number conversion, and rely on squeakToUtf. I think Andreas solved these issues with the WebClient-Pharo package, but I may be wrong. > > Now I was not even aware of the ConfigurationOfWebClient. There is none in the squeaksource repository. It's in MetacelloRepository. > So how can we guess? I'm not reading squeak-dev and no idea that there is even somebody using metacello. Well, Squeak users also use Metacello. Dale is kind enough to maintain Metacello configurations for Squeak too. > >> What's wrong with one that could be shared by all Squeak forks? > > We do not have problem with sharing. You can take anything you like from Pharo. > > Seaside, Magritte, Pier, RB,.... are all MIT > OB is MIT and lukas pushed it a lot recently for everybody. > Moose is BSD, MIT, > Glamour, Mondrian MIT > ... > and I'm sure that they are more. :) > they are all external projects. > > We discussed on the mailing-list what to do and people thought that it would be good to get > in included it. Probably we missed the point that we just need SocketStream to load the rest. I'm dull but learning > everyday. For me I just cannot stand HTTPSocket and the network package so anything is better. > > But may be it was a mistake. Note that I hope that squeakers will not bash us as the guys that want to > play it alone because this is not the case, but people can bash us if this helps them to feel good. Pharo is there for that too ;D. > WebClient was the perfect case for sharing but Andreas decided differently. > > Now > - since the license is unclear > - since the license of the contributors is unclear > we will not use it as an infrastructural assets for Pharo. I imagine that Seaside will not use it either. Well, we are about to use it for Seaside. It scales a lot better than Kom. Cog can't really speed up Kom (based on our benchmarks done with JMeter)*, probably because of the heavy use of notifications (DynamicBindings), but it can boost WebClient significantly. Levente *The benchmark is done with 50 concurrent "users", clicking the counter example as fast as they can: Label Throughput (kB/s) Average response time (ms) Squeak-Kom 69.53 690 Squeak-WebClient 105.46 447 Cog-Squeak-Kom 74.54 617 Cog-Squeak-WebClient 226.80 193 I didn't include the Pharo results, because when we did the benchmark, there was no Cog support for Pharo. The max response time for Cog-Squeak-WebClient (575ms) was less than the average of Cog-Squeak-Kom. > > > Stef > > >> Levente >> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Sven, >>>> >>>> [cc: pharo list since I think there are some larger issues to discuss] >>>> >>>> First of all thank you for your continued interest in WebClient. It is nice to see that people like to use it. However, I'm more than a bit surprised about what you are saying below about having WebClient in Pharo 1.2. Honestly, I was dumbfounded when I went to read some of the discussions on the Pharo list. >>>> >>>> May I ask what the due diligence process is for including packages in Pharo? I would have expected that the process includes 1) checking the project page on SS for the license and 2) sending the author a courtesy note along the lines of "hey we want to include your code, are you okay with that?" (in particular if the author of the package isn't on the Pharo list and consequently has no clue about what you're doing). >>>> >>>> 1. Regarding WebClient's license, please have a look at any of the following repositories, all of which are under MIT: >>>> >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D.html >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/CroquetGL.html >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ToolBuilder.html >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/TweakCore.html >>>> ... etc ... >>>> >>>> As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following repositories: >>>> >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html >>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html >>>> >>>> which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to find out what the license status for WebClient is. >>>> >>>> 2. Regarding my intentions / position you'll have to keep in mind that I don't read the Pharo list. I tried to follow it in the past only to be faced with several vicious attacks against Squeak and myself and as a consequence I stopped reading it. Consequently, this is the first time anyone has ever mentioned the inclusion of WebClient in Pharo to me. >>>> >>>> In short, my position is that we need more shared libraries, not more forks. You will probably see the irony that I specifically didn't set a license on WebClient to prevent such forks without any prior discussion (under the hopelessly naive assumption that there would be some sort of due diligence process) only to find out that you've forked WebClient already. How very ironic indeed. >>>> >>>> Because of my position above, I think WebClient should be an external package, loaded for example via Metacello configuration. In fact, that's exactly why I provided a Metacello configuration to begin with. Can someone perhaps explain where the urge to include (and consequently fork) WebClient comes from? WebClient is a perfectly good external package and for the time being I prefer it should stay that way. If you want to replace HTTPSocket, then have a look at Squeak 4.2 which contains a very simple HTTPSocket implementation that has hooks so that WebClient will be used if it's loaded. >>>> >>>> Regarding fixes for Pharo, as far as I know the only changes that I haven't included was a bunch of #asString sprinkled all over the places, and the abominations of replacing #squeakToUtf8 and #utf8ToSqueak with "convert[From|To]WithConverter: UTF8TextConverter new". On both of these issues I feel very strongly; I will not make the code substantially worse only to deal with shortcomings of Pharo. So if you cannot come to a reasonable resolution for these, you'll need the extension methods. Outside of that, I believe that not only have I integrated all the fixes that have been sent to me, I have also added several patches to WebClient-Pharo that provide important fixes for (in Pharo broken) network operations without which WebClient would not work in any released Pharo versions. >>>> >>>> Summary: >>>> * I'm surprised and I'm shocked to see that there is apparently no due diligence regarding new packages in Pharo. I find this in particular shocking giving the wild claims on the Pharo web site that "From the beginning of Pharo we have maintained a strict rule that every contributor has to sign our license agreement." I haven't. (and geez, when did Michael got dropped from the Pharo board?) >>>> >>>> * I don't want WebClient to be included in Pharo since this means you will be producing a Pharo-only fork of WebClient which is counter-productive from my perspective. I want WebClient to remain a shared loadable package with a canonical source repository available to all forks of Squeak, including Pharo. >>>> >>>> * I have, and will continue to do so, integrate fixes for Pharo as long as I consider them reasonable. If there is interest, I can also provide an updated Metacello configuration; although that really just boils down to updating it to the latest package versions. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> - Andreas >>>> >>>> On 8/29/2010 4:43 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>> Andreas, >>>>> >>>>> The lastest fiddling that I did is now in PharoInBox: >>>>> >>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.74 >>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>> Time: 27 August 2010, 1:59:46 pm >>>>> UUID: d97ff218-9bde-4259-bf8a-f9d0fe116138 >>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-StephaneDucasse.73, WebClient-Core-pmm.73 >>>>> >>>>> merged in pharo-core 1.2 >>>>> >>>>> We're down to 2 unit test failures/errors againt your latest tests. >>>>> >>>>> A number of people including myself are interested, enthousiastic and willing to help bring WebClient to Pharo (1.1 and 1.2), and by using it, help it improve its core functionality. However, the current process, whereby you mostly ignore Pharo related fixes, makes that very difficult (we basically almost have to start over again with each commit you do, comparing changes becomes harder and harder). You can check the Pharo mailing lists. >>>>> >>>>> As I said before, it is your code and your decision what your standpoint is regarding portability (to Squeak derivatives and even other Smalltalks). I can understand it if you find it too much work. But I do think you should make it clear what your standpoint is. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Aug 2010, at 04:30, Andreas Raab wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You're probably busy, so just a little "ping" :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> - Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final >>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:40:07 -0700 >>>>>> From: Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> >>>>>> To: Sven Van Caekenberghe<[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sven, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the belated reply I think something is wrong with Thunderbird >>>>>> 3's spam filter; it appears that messages with attachments get routinely >>>>>> marked as spam or something. In any case a message on Squeak-dev just >>>>>> got me to look for lost email and yours was among them :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know if these changes are still applicable? There have been >>>>>> numerous changes in the meantime in WebClient and haven't been paying >>>>>> much attention. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, and one more thing. When I went to the project page at >>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach.html it claims that "Code >>>>>> commited to this repository will be automatically under LGPLv2 license." >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously, this is not true for WebClient; could I ask you to change the >>>>>> declaration on your repository or move your versions to some other >>>>>> repository? The way it is right now people might rightfully assume that >>>>>> the WebClient versions in your repository are under LGPLv2 which is >>>>>> simply incorrect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> - Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/12/2010 1:59 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Andreas, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I made some changes to the latest WebClient-Core in order to run it on Pharo 1.1: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe uploaded a new version of WebClient-Core to project A Day At The Beach: >>>>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/ADayAtTheBeach/WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63.mcz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ==================== Summary ==================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Name: WebClient-Core-SvenVanCaekenberghe.63 >>>>>>> Author: SvenVanCaekenberghe >>>>>>> Time: 12 August 2010, 10:46:11 am >>>>>>> UUID: 149d44b2-138b-4d63-a158-f587b2bd391d >>>>>>> Ancestors: WebClient-Core-ar.62 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> added some more #asString's where needed to deal with the different semantics of #, in Squeak vs Pharo; removed usage of #and:and:and:and: with a composition of #and: in WebClient>>connect >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ================================================ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I still have some tests that fail, but I can't find the problem: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 39 run, 34 passes, 0 expected failures, 0 failures, 5 errors, 0 unexpected passes >>>>>>> Failures: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Errors: >>>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles >>>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testMultipartFiles2 >>>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testServerError >>>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSockets >>>>>>> WebClientServerTest>>#testWebSocketsFraming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The #testServerError bothers me most. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am posting this to a Pharo list as well so that maybe others can help. >>>>>>> Maybe I'll find the problems myself later on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sven >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
>> We want a library where people can participate. Now Pharoers will decide,
>> I think that we do not have problem >> with sharing on WebClient. I can understand that people do not like that >> they cannot improve an infrastructure >> that they will rely upon. We do not want string to number conversion, and >> rely on squeakToUtf. > > I think Andreas solved these issues with the WebClient-Pharo package, but I > may be wrong. What WebClient-Pharo does is to patch (and break) Pharo in the most absurd ways to make it ill-behaved like Squeak. For example, check out the implementation of String>>#,. Philippe (an expert in writing platform independent code) and Sven have fixed all these issues so that the code works flawlessly on both platforms, Squeak and Pharo. > Well, we are about to use it for Seaside. It scales a lot better than Kom. > Cog can't really speed up Kom (based on our benchmarks done with JMeter)*, > probably because of the heavy use of notifications (DynamicBindings), but it > can boost WebClient significantly. Kom is not ideal, we all know that (thanks for sharing the benchmarks). However, the current licensing situation of WebClient makes it totally useless for me and presumably many other people. Luckily there are many other options. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
On Aug 30, 2010, at 1:06 10PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >>>> >>>> I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. >>> >>> Why do you have to have your "own" library? >> >> Did I say "pharo library"? reread carefully I said an "open-source one". > > What I get from Andreas' words is that he's willing to make it open source if it won't be forked. So, definitely not MIT then. I guess that means the long-term plan of replacing HttpSocket in Squeak is out as well? > >> We do not want to be in the situation that somebody can change the license under our feet. >> We want a library where people can participate. Now Pharoers will decide, I think that we do not have problem >> with sharing on WebClient. I can understand that people do not like that they cannot improve an infrastructure >> that they will rely upon. We do not want string to number conversion, and rely on squeakToUtf. > > I think Andreas solved these issues with the WebClient-Pharo package, but I may be wrong. If you call overriding String #, (to accept any object responding to asString without raising errors) and Collection #ifEmpty: (to return nil instead of the collection ifNotEmpty) "solving the issues" in Pharo, then yeah, sure. If you call (re)introducing #squeakToUtf8/#utf8ToSqueak instead of using convertTo/FromEncoding: 'utf8', then yes. Personally, I'd call it forcing Squeakisms on anyone wanting to use WebClient, and potentially breaking any number of other packages. The rest I have no problems with, most are fixes/convenience methods which are already in, or should be introduced before Pharo 1.2 (for exampe the SocketStream fixes ) Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Levente Uzonyi-2
Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >>>> >>>> I suggest that the people that want and know, group together and build an open-source one. >>> >>> Why do you have to have your "own" library? >> >> Did I say "pharo library"? reread carefully I said an "open-source one". > > What I get from Andreas' words is that he's willing to make it open > source if it won't be forked. hand on it. Or am I mistaken? Regards Friedrich -- Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: WebClient-Core port to Pharo 1.1 final
|
|
In reply to this post by Henrik Sperre Johansen
>
> Personally, I'd call it forcing Squeakisms on anyone wanting to use WebClient, and potentially breaking any number of other packages. > > The rest I have no problems with, most are fixes/convenience methods which are already in, or should be introduced before Pharo 1.2 (for exampe the SocketStream fixes ) I think that we integrated all the socketStreams fixes last week or so. 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 |