Smalltalk › Frameworks & Tools › Moose

Re: Work on configurations browser

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Tudor Girba-2

Re: Work on configurations browser

Hi Diego,

I only now got some time to review your browser. Nice job.

What I like:
- You integrated method editing
- You made it robust so that it can deal with configurations that do not have all parts loaded
- You added the load / fetch commands and the associated refresh (through announcements)
- You kept the browser clean (often people have the tendency to add instance variables for managing the browser state)
- You added a group view

What should be improved:
- You have two panes for specs and versions. We should unify them. Ideally, we should build an intermediary model that keeps track both of the method and of the Metacello version. Thus, when we select the version we should get the associated code as well.
- The cache instance variables should move into this model, as well.
- You used underlining to denote loaded code, and blue to denote configurations. I think would like to keep color to denote when something has changed locally, but we can talk about this.
- The group view should drill into dependencies as well. Like this we can see what is the impact of loading a certain group.
- We need commit commands both for the configuration and for the packages :)

Btw, you worked on a separate package :). If you give me the StHub user, I add you to the Moose team and we can work together on the GToolkit.

Cheers,
Doru

On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Diego Lont <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Doru,
>
> Maybe I did not follow all standards doing a remake of the configuration browser, but can you take a look.
>
>> I fixed some performance bugs (not all, dependencies still can be very slow).
>> I made it possible to edit the configuration.
>> I added the possibility
>> I set the layout to follow the Monticello standard instead of a new standard.
>
> Maybe there is more work to be done, but please give your input how you like it so far.
>
> Cheers,
> Diego
> <Deltawerken-Configuration-DiegoLont.7.mcz>

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Tudor Girba-2

Re: Work on configurations browser

(let's keep the discussion on the mailing list)

Excellent. I added you to the Moose team.

More and more exciting things happen in the Moose-land :)

Doru

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Diego Lont <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Doru,

I just added myself on smalltalk hub. User DiegoLont. It would be nice if my work is used by others as well.

I will make a model of the configuration, so we can store here the things we use in the configuration browser. Also I will move stuff back into the glamour tools package. I hope to be able to work on this tomorrow.

Cheers,
Diego

On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:

> Hi Diego,
>
> I only now got some time to review your browser. Nice job.
>
> What I like:
> - You integrated method editing
> - You made it robust so that it can deal with configurations that do not have all parts loaded
> - You added the load / fetch commands and the associated refresh (through announcements)
> - You kept the browser clean (often people have the tendency to add instance variables for managing the browser state)
> - You added a group view
>
> What should be improved:
> - You have two panes for specs and versions. We should unify them. Ideally, we should build an intermediary model that keeps track both of the method and of the Metacello version. Thus, when we select the version we should get the associated code as well.

I already thought this was needed. But I first wanted to be able to edit methods, and ran into trouble that I needed a different representation. I did not want to start with a model of the configuration.

> - The cache instance variables should move into this model, as well.

That makes sense.

> - You used underlining to denote loaded code, and blue to denote configurations. I think would like to keep color to denote when something has changed locally, but we can talk about this.

I followed the monticello standard, to make it more uniform. I agree: we should keep blue for something that changed locally. So I will think of another way to paint projects.

> - The group view should drill into dependencies as well. Like this we can see what is the impact of loading a certain group.

The model of the configuration should help for this.

> - We need commit commands both for the configuration and for the packages :)

And for using the Metacello toolbox functions: like update this version for the package versions loaded.

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev