Hi All,
the RB page on squeak.org is from 2006 and is rather vague on how to load etc. What do people who want an up-to-date rewrite engine in e.g. 4.1 load and from where? Could someone who knows what's what update the RB page with accurate info?
TIA Eliot
|
This is what you're looking for:
"Omnibrowser" (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OmniBrowser'; install: 'OB-Morphic'; install: 'OB-Standard'; install: 'OB-Shout'; install: 'OB-SUnitIntegration'. "Refactoring engine and OB integration" (Installer ss project: 'rb') install: 'AST'; install: 'Refactoring-Core'; install: 'Refactoring-Spelling'; project: 'Regex'; install: 'VB-Regex'. (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OB-Refactory'; install: 'OB-Regex'. Cheers, - Andreas On 5/10/2010 4:28 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > Hi All, > > the RB page <http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/227> on squeak.org > <http://squeak.org> is from 2006 and is rather vague on how to load etc. > What do people who want an up-to-date rewrite engine in e.g. 4.1 load > and from where? Could someone who knows what's what update the RB page > with accurate info? > > TIA > Eliot > > > > |
i must have done this wrong...
i opened a workspace and put in: (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OmniBrowser'; install: 'OB-Morphic'; install: 'OB-Standard'; install: 'OB-Shout'; install: 'OB-SUnitIntegration'. HIGHLIGHT ALL AND "DO IT" - downloads stuff... no errors :) then the same with: (Installer ss project: 'rb') install: 'AST'; install: 'Refactoring-Core'; install: 'Refactoring-Spelling'; project: 'Regex'; install: 'VB-Regex'. and: (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OB-Refactory'; install: 'OB-Regex'. in the end, the browser that opens up looks lovely, but no matter what is selected in the browser - all the way down to a method: the "browse", "hierarchy", "variables", "implementors", etc buttons do nothing whatsoever when clicked on - which is exactly how it was before when i tried this before (a few days ago)... and i wonder if this is how it should be (?). maybe this is not the correct way to LOAD/install this ? probably... i did not see any other example of how to do it... just what happened (same as last time - when i was hoping that RB/OB would be working) tonite... could someone please just spell out exactly how to load "OB/RB" in a way that the buttons in the browser actually work? or spell out what else is needed, or something??? is it a preference or something that needs to be changed before or after loading? or some other kritter? thanks, ken ----- Original Message ---- From: Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[hidden email]> Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 5:57:52 PM Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Refactoring Browser and Rewrite Engine for Squeak This is what you're looking for: "Omnibrowser" (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OmniBrowser'; install: 'OB-Morphic'; install: 'OB-Standard'; install: 'OB-Shout'; install: 'OB-SUnitIntegration'. "Refactoring engine and OB integration" (Installer ss project: 'rb') install: 'AST'; install: 'Refactoring-Core'; install: 'Refactoring-Spelling'; project: 'Regex'; install: 'VB-Regex'. (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') install: 'OB-Refactory'; install: 'OB-Regex'. Cheers, - Andreas On 5/10/2010 4:28 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > Hi All, > > the RB page <http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/227> on squeak.org > <http://squeak.org> is from 2006 and is rather vague on how to load etc. > What do people who want an up-to-date rewrite engine in e.g. 4.1 load > and from where? Could someone who knows what's what update the RB page > with accurate info? > > TIA > Eliot > > > > |
On 5/11/10 7:31 AM, "Squeak List" <[hidden email]> wrote: > i must have done this wrong... > > i opened a workspace and put in: > > (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') > install: 'OmniBrowser'; > install: 'OB-Morphic'; > install: 'OB-Standard'; > install: 'OB-Shout'; > install: 'OB-SUnitIntegration'. > > HIGHLIGHT ALL AND "DO IT" - downloads stuff... no errors :) > > then the same with: > > (Installer ss project: 'rb') > install: 'AST'; > install: 'Refactoring-Core'; > install: 'Refactoring-Spelling'; > project: 'Regex'; > install: 'VB-Regex'. > > and: > > (Installer wiresong project: 'ob') > install: 'OB-Refactory'; > install: 'OB-Regex'. > > in the end, the browser that opens up looks lovely, but no matter what is > selected in the browser - all the way down to a method: the "browse", > "hierarchy", "variables", "implementors", etc buttons do nothing whatsoever > when clicked on - which is exactly how it was before when i tried this before > (a few days ago)... and i wonder if this is how it should be (?). > > maybe this is not the correct way to LOAD/install this ? probably... > > i did not see any other example of how to do it... > > just what happened (same as last time - when i was hoping that RB/OB would be > working) tonite... > > could someone please just spell out exactly how to load "OB/RB" in a way that > the buttons in the browser actually work? > > or spell out what else is needed, or something??? is it a preference or > something that needs to be changed before or after loading? or some other > kritter? > > thanks, > > ken Report confirmed, OB load but buttons do not work. And one question... Why we do not have OB as default as our pharopatas cousins ? Edgar |
Am 2010-05-11 um 13:54 schrieb Edgar J. De Cleene: […] > Report confirmed, OB load but buttons do not work. > > And one question... > > Why we do not have OB as default as our pharopatas cousins ? As per various messages, Pharo seems to aim at O2, no Longer at OmniBrowser. So Long, -Tobias |
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:08 +0200, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Am 2010-05-11 um 13:54 schrieb Edgar J. De Cleene: > […] > > Report confirmed, OB load but buttons do not work. > > > > And one question... > > > > Why we do not have OB as default as our pharopatas cousins ? > > As per various messages, Pharo seems to aim at O2, > no Longer at OmniBrowser. > > So Long, > -Tobias to me. That's not to say, OB should not be cared for and made to run on Squeak. Regards, Tim |
On 5/11/10, Tim Felgentreff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And actually, having a fairly lean image without the need for OB appeals > to me. +1 > That's not to say, OB should not be cared for and made to run on Squeak. +1 --Hannes |
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
OmniBrowser carries a lot of complexity being a browser implementation framework in addition to being a class browser. Even in recent Pharo builds, it's also awfully slow. Most support for it is in the Pharo camp, and stable releases for Squeak are pretty rare. With O2 also balkanizing the landscape, I tend to think we should keep things simple in official images; there's nothing stopping folks from loading any OB that works, or stopping folks from making OB work in Squeak.
One interesting way forward, I think, would be to look into what it would take to make the refactoring engine (separate from the OB framework) integrate with the standard system browser in Squeak (in some way such that it would be unloadable.) Other than the neat icons in the list panes, what do you really get with OB? Better menu options for refactoring, and these (AFAIK) just expose functionality that's implemented in the refactoring engine anyway. I don't know of any applications other than the OB system browser that actually take advantage of OB as a browser-creation framework. I'd vote against including a browser-creation framework in which only a single browser is implemented in the standard Squeak distribution. It adds a lot of complexity without giving a lot back in return. On the other hand, the refactoring engine might be interesting, so I don't have an opinion either way on that.
Of course, I have had enough difficulty finding time just to write some documentation in between job hunting as it is, and certainly don't expect to volunteer anyone to integrate the refactoring engine either, so maybe I'm not putting my money where my mouth is on that one.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Casey Ransberger |
"it's also awfully slow."
+1
"One interesting way forward, I think, would be to look into what it would take to make the refactoring engine (separate from the OB framework) integrate with the standard system browser in Squeak (in some way such that it would be unloadable.) "
not sure about being unloadable, but otherwise:
+1
From: Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[hidden email]> Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 11:45:25 AM Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Refactoring Browser and Rewrite Engine for Squeak OmniBrowser carries a lot of complexity being a browser implementation framework in addition to being a class browser. Even in recent Pharo builds, it's also awfully slow. Most support for it is in the Pharo camp, and stable releases for Squeak are pretty rare. With O2 also balkanizing the landscape, I tend to think we should keep things simple in official images; there's nothing stopping folks from loading any OB that works, or stopping folks from making OB work in Squeak. One interesting way forward, I think, would be to look into what it would take to make the refactoring engine (separate from the OB framework) integrate with the standard system browser in Squeak (in some way such that it would be unloadable.) Other than the neat icons in the list panes, what do you really get with OB? Better menu options for refactoring, and these (AFAIK) just expose functionality that's implemented in the refactoring engine anyway. I don't know of any applications other than the OB system browser that actually take advantage of OB as a browser-creation framework.
I'd vote against including a browser-creation framework in which only a single browser is implemented in the standard Squeak distribution. It adds a lot of complexity without giving a lot back in return. On the other hand, the refactoring engine might be interesting, so I don't have an opinion either way on that.
Of course, I have had enough difficulty finding time just to write some documentation in between job hunting as it is, and certainly don't expect to volunteer anyone to integrate the refactoring engine either, so maybe I'm not putting my money where my mouth is on that one.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Casey Ransberger |
I had a dream about RB/RE and some of its light features were
integrated to the standard System Browser. What? A man can dream... :) Ian. -- http://mecenia.blogspot.com/ |
Ian,
Surely and a few years ago I think the RB/RE was integrated in the regular browser. The current browser has been rebuilt using ToolBuilder (by Andreas R. I assume). It should be feasible to add it. Another dream which might be worthwile to find out more about (and maybe some Pharo people are working on this) is to check out Glamour. http://www.squeaksource.com/Glamour It is about a browser writing DSL. Or a toolkit for constructing browsers - not only for code but just for general domain models. The MS thesis by Philipp Bunge which you can download from http://moose.unibe.ch/tools/glamour gives a very good introduction. With Glamour you can construct various kinds of browsers with just a few lines of code.. The introduction gives a good historical background about browsers in general***. It mentions the And there are examples which give a general perspective. Philipp Bunge gives an evalutation of various browser approaches including OB. --Hannes *** It goes back as far as the visit of Trygve Reenskaug (Norway) to the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center between 1978 and 1979. He wished to use Smalltalk-76 as the basis for a system for production control in shipbuilding. This later led to the development of MVC. On 5/12/10, Ian Trudel <[hidden email]> wrote: > I had a dream about RB/RE and some of its light features were > integrated to the standard System Browser. What? A man can dream... :) > > Ian. > -- > http://mecenia.blogspot.com/ > > |
On 5/12/10 9:34 AM, "Hannes Hirzel" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Another dream which might be worthwile to find out more about (and > maybe some Pharo people are working on this) is to check out Glamour. > > http://www.squeaksource.com/Glamour I see presentation about Glamour in Smalltalks 2009 in Buenos Aires and was amazing. +1 to any "force task" for investigate it have a Squesk 4.1 version Edgar |
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 2010-05-11, at 11:45 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > One interesting way forward, I think, would be to look into what it would take to make the refactoring engine (separate from the OB framework) integrate with the standard system browser in Squeak (in some way such that it would be unloadable.) Other than the neat icons in the list panes, what do you really get with OB? Better menu options for refactoring, and these (AFAIK) just expose functionality that's implemented in the refactoring engine anyway. I don't know of any applications other than the OB system browser that actually take advantage of OB as a browser-creation framework. > > I'd vote against including a browser-creation framework in which only a single browser is implemented in the standard Squeak distribution. It adds a lot of complexity without giving a lot back in return. On the other hand, the refactoring engine might be interesting, so I don't have an opinion either way on that. Why all the hate for OmniBrowser? Above, you seem to be saying, "I want a browser with the features that OmniBrowser has, but without the flexibility and modularity." You're even suggesting that someone should do a lot of work (and yes, it *is* a lot of work) to reimplement the functionality that OB already provides. By the way, there are quite a few other projects that use the OB framework. Off the top of my head: - Seaside use it for configuration - The Gemstone interface to Monticello is based on OB (runs great in Squeak!). - The Gemstone Test-Runner is based on OB (runs great in Squeak!). - Hernán Durand's Dependency Browser is based on OB - My FileBrowser package - OB-Tools, a debugger and inspector based on OB. Now, OB isn't perfect. It has issues and bugs just like any significant piece of software. But why not fix them, or at least complain so that others can fix them? Colin |
Colin, My comments are online below.
I like the refactoring functionality that's there. The icons are nice, but I don't need them. Most folks have been talking about wanting a smaller, less complex base system in Squeak. OB strikes me as large and complex, which I think is a fair statement: it's complex because it does a lot.
I suggested looking into how much work it would be to integrate the refactoring engine. Now that I think about it, we'd probably also need AST and Regex to use just that, wouldn't we? Three packages seems like a lot to add to the main Squeak distribution; may as well include OB too. I'd like to retract that statement. Mea culpa.
I stand corrected. This maybe explains why I couldn't find the configuration manager panel anywhere when I last installed Seaside:) as this time I didn't have OB loaded.
Let me ask you a couple of questions: is OB currently developed on the Squeak platform? How many active developers does OB have? Most of the related posts I've seen in squeak-dev have been from confused folk wondering which packages to load in order to get it working, or from people wondering why something or other isn't working after picking some packages and loading them. My suspicion is that OB development is ongoing in Pharo. Are there enough interested people with the requisite knowledge to keep OB working in Squeak? IIRC, awhile back you (I'm pretty sure it was you) sent mail to the list about a .sar with an official release. I was really happy about that. I installed it at the time and everything seemed to be working. I went back a few weeks ago to hunt down that file, and (while I don't have the link handy) it seemed to be missing from the server. Where can I get the most recent Squeak compatible release of OB now? I'm wondering if it might work out better for some of the folks wanting to try out OB than playing Russian roulette with SqueakSource packages. Colin, I want to be clear: I have nothing against OmniBrowser; I've used it on and off and quite like it. I'm just against making it "the" browser in Squeak at this time, and I think it's rather large to include in the image just as an optional feature. In fact, just the other day, I threw in two cents saying that Regex should be in the standard image, and even that was met with friction.
|
2010/5/12 Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]>:
> Colin, > My comments are online below. > On May 12, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Why all the hate for OmniBrowser? > > It's not hate. OB is a cool piece of software. I'm very sorry if I've > offended. > > Above, you seem to be saying, "I want a browser with the features that > OmniBrowser has, but without the flexibility and modularity." > > I like the refactoring functionality that's there. The icons are nice, but I > don't need them. Most folks have been talking about wanting a smaller, less > complex base system in Squeak. OB strikes me as large and complex, which I > think is a fair statement: it's complex because it does a lot. > > You're even suggesting that someone should do a lot of work (and yes, it > *is* a lot of work) to reimplement the functionality that OB already > provides. > > I suggested looking into how much work it would be to integrate the > refactoring engine. Now that I think about it, we'd probably also need AST > and Regex to use just that, wouldn't we? Three packages seems like a lot to > add to the main Squeak distribution; may as well include OB too. I'd like to > retract that statement. Mea culpa. > > By the way, there are quite a few other projects that use the OB framework. > Off the top of my head: > > - Seaside use it for configuration > - The Gemstone interface to Monticello is based on OB (runs great in > Squeak!). > - The Gemstone Test-Runner is based on OB (runs great in Squeak!). > - Hernán Durand's Dependency Browser is based on OB > - My FileBrowser package > - OB-Tools, a debugger and inspector based on OB. > > I stand corrected. This maybe explains why I couldn't find the configuration > manager panel anywhere when I last installed Seaside:) as this time I didn't > have OB loaded. > You may check a browser of persisted objects I did some time ago, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxUaOFRHFPk > Now, OB isn't perfect. It has issues and bugs just like any significant > piece of software. But why not fix them, or at least complain so that others > can fix them? > > I think the key word here is 'significant;' OB has a lot of moving parts. > The more moving parts there are in an application, the more likely one of > those moving parts is to break when something changes in a dependency (e.g., > Squeak, as has apparently already happened in 4.1.) > Let me ask you a couple of questions: is OB currently developed on the > Squeak platform? How many active developers does OB have? > Most of the related posts I've seen in squeak-dev have been from confused > folk wondering which packages to load in order to get it working, or from > people wondering why something or other isn't working after picking some > packages and loading them. My suspicion is that OB development is ongoing in > Pharo. Are there enough interested people with the requisite knowledge to > keep OB working in Squeak? I would like to read more documentation about the implementation. > IIRC, awhile back you (I'm pretty sure it was you) sent mail to the list > about a .sar with an official release. I was really happy about that. I > installed it at the time and everything seemed to be working. I went back a > few weeks ago to hunt down that file, and (while I don't have the link > handy) it seemed to be missing from the server. Where can I get the most > recent Squeak compatible release of OB now? Try Installer installUrl: 'http://www.wiresong.ca/downloads/OmniBrowser-2.0.3.sar'. it works fine for me in Squeak 4.1 > I'm wondering if it might work > out better for some of the folks wanting to try out OB than playing Russian > roulette with SqueakSource packages. > Colin, I want to be clear: I have nothing against OmniBrowser; I've used it > on and off and quite like it. I'm just against making it "the" browser in > Squeak at this time, and I think it's rather large to include in the image > just as an optional feature. In fact, just the other day, I threw in two > cents saying that Regex should be in the standard image, and even that was > met with friction. I think newcomers wonder which Browser should use. Instead of choosing a default browser I would present an optional wizard for configuring basic preferences of Squeak. Then add in a step descriptions of each browsers pros and cons and delegate to the users the decision. If the browser they choose isn't installed, then install it on demand. > > > Colin > > > > |
On 5/14/10, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Where can I get the most >> recent Squeak compatible release of OB now? > > Try > > Installer installUrl: > 'http://www.wiresong.ca/downloads/OmniBrowser-2.0.3.sar'. > > it works fine for me in Squeak 4.1 > Does this imply that the refactoring code works as well in 4.1?. --Hannes |
On 2010-05-14, at 1:49 AM, Hannes Hirzel wrote: > On 5/14/10, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote: > Where can I get the most >>> recent Squeak compatible release of OB now? >> >> Try >> >> Installer installUrl: >> 'http://www.wiresong.ca/downloads/OmniBrowser-2.0.3.sar'. >> >> it works fine for me in Squeak 4.1 >> > > Does this imply that the refactoring code works as well in 4.1?. No. That SAR has an old version of the refactoring engine, which doesn't work under 4.1. I recently committed a fix, so the installer script that Casey posted earlier in this thread does work. I'll be releasing a new SAR installer soon. Colin |
Hello Colin
Would it be possible to have an updated Metacello configuration instead of an SAR file? The configuration has a higher documentary value I think and people can include it as part of other configurations to create more elaborate build scripts. However if you do not want to go for this at this current time a SAR is fine as well. Kind regards Hannes ------------------------------------------------------ Metacello configuration for OmniBrowser ------------------------------------------------------ In the Metacello configuration repository http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository I looked at the class which contains the configuration for OmniBrowser ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser The Pharo version is taken from 'http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/omnibrowser'. whereas the Squeak version is taken from 'http://source.wiresong.ca/ob'. I assume that this implie that the Pharo people maintain a fork. In the case APPENDIX A: Definition of version 1.1 *** baseline11: spec <version: '1.1-baseline'> spec for: #common do: [ spec blessing: #baseline. ]. spec for: #pharo do: [ spec repository: 'http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/omnibrowser'. spec project: 'Refactoring-Core' with: [ spec className: 'ConfigurationOfRefactoringBrowser'; loads: #('Refactoring-Core' ); file: 'ConfigurationOfRefactoringBrowser'; repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository' ]; project: 'Refactoring Tests' copyFrom: 'Refactoring-Core' with: [ spec loads: #('Tests' ).]; project: 'OCompletion' with: [ spec className: 'ConfigurationOfOCompletion'; loads: #('Core' ); file: 'ConfigurationOfOCompletion'; repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository' ]; project: 'OCompletion Tests' copyFrom: 'OCompletion' with: [ spec loads: #('Tests' ).]. spec package: 'OmniBrowser'; package: 'OB-Morphic' with: [ spec requires: 'OmniBrowser' ]; package: 'OB-Standard' with: [ spec requires: #('OmniBrowser' 'OB-Morphic' ); postLoadDoIt: #postLoadOBStandard ]; package: 'OB-SUnitIntegration' with: [ spec requires: 'OmniBrowser' ]; package: 'OB-Shout' with: [ spec requires: 'OB-Morphic' ]; package: 'OB-Refactory' with: [ spec requires: #('Refactoring-Core' 'OB-Standard')]; package: 'OB-Regex' with: [ spec requires: #('Refactoring-Core' 'OB-Standard')]; package: 'OB-Tests-Core' with: [ spec requires: #('OmniBrowser' )]; package: 'OB-Tests-Morphic' with: [ spec requires: #('OB-Morphic' 'OB-Tests-Core' )]; package: 'BogusInfo'; package: 'OB-Fake' with: [ spec requires: 'OB-Tests-Core']; package: 'OB-Tests-Standard' with: [ spec requires: #('OB-Standard' 'BogusInfo' 'OB-Fake' )]; package: 'OCForOB' with: [ spec repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/OCompletion'; requires: #('OCompletion' 'OmniBrowser' 'OB-Standard')]. spec group: 'default' with: #('Core' ); group: 'Core' with: #( 'OmniBrowser' 'OB-Morphic' 'OB-Standard' ); group: 'Core Tests' with: #( 'OB-Tests-Core' 'OB-Tests-Morphic' 'OB-Tests-Standard' ); group: 'Dev' with: #( 'Core' 'OB-SUnitIntegration' 'OB-Shout' 'OB-Refactory' 'OB-Regex' 'OCForOB'); group: 'Dev Tests' with: #( 'Core Tests' 'Refactoring Tests' 'OCompletion Tests' ); yourself. ]. spec for: #squeak do: [ spec repository: 'http://source.wiresong.ca/ob'. spec package: 'OmniBrowser'; package: 'OB-Morphic' with: [ spec requires: 'OmniBrowser' ]; package: 'OB-Standard' with: [ spec requires: #('OmniBrowser' 'OB-Morphic' ); postLoadDoIt: #postLoadOBStandard ]; package: 'OB-SUnitIntegration' with: [ spec requires: 'OmniBrowser' ]; package: 'OB-Shout' with: [ spec requires: 'OB-Morphic' ]; yourself. spec group: 'default' with: #('Core' ); group: 'Core' with: #( 'OmniBrowser' 'OB-Morphic' 'OB-Standard' ); group: 'Core Tests' with: #('Core'); group: 'Dev' with: #( 'Core' 'OB-SUnitIntegration' 'OB-Shout' ); group: 'Dev Tests' with: #('Dev'); yourself. ]. ----------------- APPENDIX B: current release version113: spec <version: '1.1.3' imports: #('1.1-baseline')> spec for: #common do: [ spec blessing: #release. spec author: 'MarianoMartinezPeck'. spec description: '- Fixes to Pharo issues 2274: '. ]. spec for: #pharo do: [ spec project: 'Refactoring-Core' with: '1.2'. spec package: 'OmniBrowser' with: 'OmniBrowser-lr.469'; package: 'OB-Morphic' with: 'OB-Morphic-lr.116'; package: 'OB-Standard' with: 'OB-Standard-lr.463'; package: 'OB-Refactory' with: 'OB-Refactory-lr.203'; package: 'OB-Regex' with: 'OB-Regex-lr.22'; package: 'OB-Shout' with: 'OB-Shout-lr.5'; package: 'OB-SUnitIntegration' with: 'OB-SUnitIntegration-lr.24'; package: 'OB-Tests-Core' with: 'OB-Tests-Core-lr.81'; package: 'OB-Tests-Morphic' with: 'OB-Tests-Morphic-lr.26'; package: 'BogusInfo' with: 'BogusInfo-lr.18'; package: 'OB-Tests-Standard' with: 'OB-Tests-Standard-lr.110'; package: 'OCForOB' with: 'OCForOB-rr.2'; package: 'OB-Fake' with: 'OB-Fake-lr.14'. ]. spec for: #squeak do: [ spec author: 'DaleHenrichs'. spec description: 'Squeak support based on Squeak3.10.2-Trunk-090912 and OmniBrowser-2.0.3.sar'. spec package: 'OmniBrowser' with: 'OmniBrowser-cwp.453'; package: 'OB-Morphic' with: 'OB-Morphic-cwp.100'; package: 'OB-Standard' with: 'OB-Standard-cwp.429'; package: 'OB-Shout' with: 'OB-Shout-cwp.2'; package: 'OB-SUnitIntegration' with: 'OB-SUnitIntegration-lr.14' ] On 5/14/10, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 2010-05-14, at 1:49 AM, Hannes Hirzel wrote: > >> On 5/14/10, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Where can I get the most >>>> recent Squeak compatible release of OB now? >>> >>> Try >>> >>> Installer installUrl: >>> 'http://www.wiresong.ca/downloads/OmniBrowser-2.0.3.sar'. >>> >>> it works fine for me in Squeak 4.1 >>> >> >> Does this imply that the refactoring code works as well in 4.1?. > > No. That SAR has an old version of the refactoring engine, which doesn't > work under 4.1. > > I recently committed a fix, so the installer script that Casey posted > earlier in this thread does work. > > I'll be releasing a new SAR installer soon. > > Colin > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |