Dear Squeakers,
I agree with Sean that the necessity to copy a configuration class from a cross-fork package ConfigurationOf... to the proposed Configuration package for Squeak makes life much more complicated and more work for those good fellows who care to create portable packages. IMHO that is a bad things for all forks. The ability to support cross-fork development is one of the greatest assets of Metacello. I see no reason not to use it.
The good news is that - as Sean already wrote - all the good things of Andreas proposal could work equally well even if we reused the cross-fork ConfigurationOf... packages. The fact that some core developer copies such a package to the trunk could mean it was tested with Squeak. The only difference would be having more packages in the Monticello Browser. (They could be hidden from there.)
IIUC one thing misses from Metacello right now to use it in the way Andreas envisions: A categorization for an installer UI like Andreas' ConfigBrowser. I am sure Dale could be convinced to add that to the metadata/API if cross-development configurations could continue to be supported.
Did I miss something?
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Bernhard
Am 21.05.2010 um 20:14 schrieb Sean P. DeNigris:
>
>
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> If the systems require different configurations, then there should be
>> different configurations.
>>
> Absolutely, and Metacello already handles the difference. Handling it by
> creating two separate Classes is solving a problem that doesn't exist, while
> creating a problem for developers - who now have to do extra work for no
> discernible reason.
>
>
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> re-using configurations is not that important
>>
> Maybe not for code reuse, but logistically, it's much harder. I'm going
> through SqS and SqMap making old interesting projects loadable. A little
> more effort * 100 projects is significant.
>
>
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> What *is* more important is that the configuration has actually been
>> tested in Squeak, and not just been copied over from other places.
>>
>
> Yes, but that is irrelevant here. If someone adds the config to the inbox,
> that presumably means they have tested it in Squeak. And, there would be
> nothing to prevent someone from creating a new config from scratch that
> didn't work; maybe more likely not to work because a perfectly good config
> has to be split apart. Anyway, I thought that's why we're going to do
> automatic testing.
>
> In summary, if we can make life easier, why not? For example, couldn't
> ConfigBrowser select classes that start with ConfigurationOf instead of
> MetacelloConfigruation subclasses?
>
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Cross-fork-Metacello-configurations-tp2226390p2226525.html> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Locked
