Re: [squeak-dev] Gofer versus Installer

Hi guys,

Cross posted to Squeak and Pharo.

On 14. 12. 2010 22:56, Ken G. Brown wrote:

>> Lukas maintains Gofer
>> and there are reasons to use it: closer relationship with Pharo, contemporary MC integration (Metacello).
>
> I can accept using Gofer in trunk, for things that require it like reading it's own scripts.
> But I don't want to see Installer go away... because of all the things Installer does that Gofer doesn't.

What if someone:

 1. adds to Gofer loading from SqueakMap and other
 2. then Lukas is kindly asked to rename it to the Installer.

That way we will have a maintained installer with a meaningful name and
everyone will be happy. Because we really need one and only one
installer for both Squeak and Pharo.

Best regards
Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

On 12/15/2010 6:27 AM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> What if someone:
>
>   1. adds to Gofer loading from SqueakMap and other
>   2. then Lukas is kindly asked to rename it to the Installer.
>
> That way we will have a maintained installer with a meaningful name and
> everyone will be happy. Because we really need one and only one
> installer for both Squeak and Pharo.

Slightly wrong. Gofer isn't an installer. Gofer is the API for
Monticello. If you wanted to rename it you should rename it simply to
"Monticello" and merge it with the MC core packages.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

I think my suggestion would be more palatable to folks concerned about tidiness:

  - Strip Installer of all features that can be handled by Gofer.
  - Make Installer USE Gofer for those things that Gofer does
(Monticello packages).
  - That way folks like Miguel can have only Gofer loaded, old fogies
like me can have Installer+Gofer loaded.

One question that came to my mind last night:  What does > 1000 lines
of Gofer code bring to Monticello-loading that I can't already do with
just Monticello?  or with a couple of facade methods added to plain
MC?



2010/12/15 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

On 15 December 2010 17:46, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 just had the same impression.

Gofer looks like a fine-shaped MC frontend.

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

On 12/15/2010 9:21 AM, Chris Muller wrote:
> One question that came to my mind last night:  What does>  1000 lines
> of Gofer code bring to Monticello-loading that I can't already do with
> just Monticello?  or with a couple of facade methods added to plain
> MC?

I spent the evening yesterday to look at Gofer in detail and it is what
led me to say that Gofer is really an API to Monticello, not an
installer. First, there is nothing in there that should not be part of
Monticello proper; contrary to Installer and Metacello I would expect
all the stuff that is in Gofer to be readily available in Monticello
itself. Gofer is simply a good facade to Monticello with a useful API.

Secondly, much of the code in Gofer comes from the "command pattern gone
wild" problem. Gofer simply overuses the command pattern. Every
operation is wrapped in a separate class without any need for doing so.
As a consequence, things that should be a simple "self foo" become
unnecessarily complex in creation, setup, and execution. If you would
take this out, it would reduce Gofer to 5 classes or so and the total
code size by a significant amount while improving clarity.

As an API to Monticello, Gofer is very nice and we should standardize on
it. But as a "replacement" for Installer it's not even in the same ballpark.

Cheers,
   - Andreas