Repackaging task force
Locked
 
|
Hi,
after an IRC discussion with Alexandre and Stef yesterday we agreed that it would be good to start working on cleaning up/organizing the packages and get better structure into the system. Goals: - seperate tests, examples, help, ... from code in distinguishable packages - but also have tests, examples, help packages closer to the code - be able to have cleaned up and reproducable package dependencies in the future - provide quality checks to see if packages conform to cleanup rules The abusing of class categories for packaging will not be replaced with a real packaging system in the near future but that shouldnt be a problem so far. I dont know where we will end up, how much time we can devote and what problems we may find but if we wont try we will never find out ... Proposal: ========= 1. we should have an informal repackaging task force and I would like to invite the following people since they already worked on repackaging/loading/unloading before: Adrian, Pavel, Stef and any other who wants to help 2. since we have to use a naming convention we would like to start with the one from Seaside: http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/PackageNaming since it is already used and may help us here. Lets see how this turns out. 3. we should start with simple packages and clean them up 4. well formed packages also means we can run quality checks per package. Maybe the hudson infrastructure can help us here to tell if already cleaned up packages continue to be clean. To wet your appetite a little bit I worked in the announcement framework packages. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3252 As a goodie we have a new help book documenting the framework a little bit. Feel free to try the changesets in a recent 1.2 image and comment. I hope this doesnt start a flamewar on the correct package naming (which we can always change) but help to improve the quality of each package one by one ... Thx T. -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome |
|
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Torsten Bergmann
***THANKS A LOT*** for this initiative!!!!!!
thanks thanks thanks!!! Stef On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Torsten Bergmann wrote: > Hi, > > after an IRC discussion with Alexandre and Stef yesterday we agreed > that it would be good to start working on cleaning up/organizing > the packages and get better structure into the system. > > Goals: > - seperate tests, examples, help, ... from code in distinguishable packages > - but also have tests, examples, help packages closer to the code > - be able to have cleaned up and reproducable package dependencies > in the future > - provide quality checks to see if packages conform to cleanup rules > > The abusing of class categories for packaging will not be > replaced with a real packaging system in the near future but > that shouldnt be a problem so far. > > I dont know where we will end up, how much time we can devote and > what problems we may find but if we wont try we will never find > out ... > > Proposal: > ========= > 1. we should have an informal repackaging task force and I would > like to invite the following people since they already worked > on repackaging/loading/unloading before: > > Adrian, Pavel, Stef and any other who wants to help > > 2. since we have to use a naming convention we would like to start > with the one from Seaside: > http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/PackageNaming > > since it is already used and may help us here. Lets see how > this turns out. > > 3. we should start with simple packages and clean them up > > 4. well formed packages also means we can run quality checks > per package. Maybe the hudson infrastructure can help us > here to tell if already cleaned up packages continue to be > clean. > > To wet your appetite a little bit I worked in the announcement > framework packages. > > See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3252 > > As a goodie we have a new help book documenting the framework a little bit. > > Feel free to try the changesets in a recent 1.2 image and comment. > I hope this doesnt start a flamewar on the correct package naming > (which we can always change) but help to improve the quality of > each package one by one ... > > Thx > T. > > -- > GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Torsten Bergmann
Hi Torsten,
Nice to see that we also improve at this front again! The goals make sense. When I recategorized all the tests that were mixed with the code to the global "Tests" package, I followed your first goal ("separate tests and code"). The main objective was to be able to make tests unloadable for the #cleanUpForProduction stripping of an image. So I think that splitting up the monolithic Tests package is a good next step because we gain modularity as single packages can be moved out/in of core including their tests (which is currently not possible since the tests can only be loaded/unloaded at once). I've seen your Regex refactoring [3254], which splits the code into three separate Monticello packages: Regex-Core Regex-Tests Regex-Examples That is, there is no package "Regex" anymore. Looks good (also the removing of the 'VB-' prefix was long overdue). I don't think its a big drawback, but just because it was not mentioned before: the consequence is that we'll end up with more than twice as many Monticello packages in the system. Cheers, Adrian On Nov 12, 2010, at 15:17 , Torsten Bergmann wrote: > Hi, > > after an IRC discussion with Alexandre and Stef yesterday we agreed > that it would be good to start working on cleaning up/organizing > the packages and get better structure into the system. > > Goals: > - seperate tests, examples, help, ... from code in distinguishable packages > - but also have tests, examples, help packages closer to the code > - be able to have cleaned up and reproducable package dependencies > in the future > - provide quality checks to see if packages conform to cleanup rules > > The abusing of class categories for packaging will not be > replaced with a real packaging system in the near future but > that shouldnt be a problem so far. > > I dont know where we will end up, how much time we can devote and > what problems we may find but if we wont try we will never find > out ... > > Proposal: > ========= > 1. we should have an informal repackaging task force and I would > like to invite the following people since they already worked > on repackaging/loading/unloading before: > > Adrian, Pavel, Stef and any other who wants to help > > 2. since we have to use a naming convention we would like to start > with the one from Seaside: > http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/PackageNaming > > since it is already used and may help us here. Lets see how > this turns out. > > 3. we should start with simple packages and clean them up > > 4. well formed packages also means we can run quality checks > per package. Maybe the hudson infrastructure can help us > here to tell if already cleaned up packages continue to be > clean. > > To wet your appetite a little bit I worked in the announcement > framework packages. > > See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3252 > > As a goodie we have a new help book documenting the framework a little bit. > > Feel free to try the changesets in a recent 1.2 image and comment. > I hope this doesnt start a flamewar on the correct package naming > (which we can always change) but help to improve the quality of > each package one by one ... > > Thx > T. > > -- > GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |