Seaside 3.0 final and Pharo 1.0

> I am building the configuration for the 3.0 final release and I'm getting a
> bunch of test failures in Pharo1.0:
>
>  1652 run, 1609 passes, 2 expected failures, 0 failures, 41 errors,
>    0 unexpected passes
>
> It looks like the errors are due to the removal of Collection>>#sorted,
> Collection>>#sorted: and WriteStream class>>crlf... from Grease-Pharo-Core
> ...
>
> So I'm just wondering if it is intentional to _not_ support Seaside3.0 on
> Pharo1.0.
>
> There are similar problems with earlier versions of Pharo 1.1
> (Pharo-1.1-11411dev10.07.1 for example), but presumably the errors could be
> fixed by updating to the latest ...
>
> It would be relatively straightforward to fix the problem at the cost of an
> extra package for Pharo 1.0 (and earlier development versions of Pharo1.1)
> if you are interested in making life easier for folks using Seaside3.0 on
> those versions of Pharo.
>
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>

>
> Lukas
>
> On 5 October 2010 22:47, Dale Henrichs<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> I am building the configuration for the 3.0 final release and I'm getting a
>> bunch of test failures in Pharo1.0:
>>
>>   1652 run, 1609 passes, 2 expected failures, 0 failures, 41 errors,
>>     0 unexpected passes
>>
>> It looks like the errors are due to the removal of Collection>>#sorted,
>> Collection>>#sorted: and WriteStream class>>crlf... from Grease-Pharo-Core
>> ...
>>
>> So I'm just wondering if it is intentional to _not_ support Seaside3.0 on
>> Pharo1.0.
>>
>> There are similar problems with earlier versions of Pharo 1.1
>> (Pharo-1.1-11411dev10.07.1 for example), but presumably the errors could be
>> fixed by updating to the latest ...
>>
>> It would be relatively straightforward to fix the problem at the cost of an
>> extra package for Pharo 1.0 (and earlier development versions of Pharo1.1)
>> if you are interested in making life easier for folks using Seaside3.0 on
>> those versions of Pharo.
>>
>>
>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>>
>
>
>

> On 10/05/2010 01:57 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>
>> Seaside 3.0 final depends on changes only present in Pharo 1.1.
>>
>> Of course it would be possible to support Pharo 1.0 with appropriate
>> Grease and Seaside support packages, however I doubt that this is
>> worth the trouble. Most development packages (RB, OB, ...) only work
>> on Pharo 1.1 too.
>
> The ConfigurationOfSeaside30 takes care of the RB, OB issues, too, so it is
> very easy to support Pharo1.0. It will be more of a hassle for me to do
> something later (which is why I'm sending the mail), but if you don't want
> to support Pharo1.0 I won't put the effort into it and just mention that
> Pharo1.0 isn't supported with the Seaside 3.0 final release.
>
> BTW, it is only the most recent changes that have broken Seaside3.0 on
> Pharo1.0 ... it has worked fine up until "now":)

> I am building the configuration for the 3.0 final release and I'm
> getting a bunch of test failures in Pharo1.0:
>
>     1652 run, 1609 passes, 2 expected failures, 0 failures, 41 errors,
>       0 unexpected passes
>
> It looks like the errors are due to the removal of Collection>>#sorted,
> Collection>>#sorted: and WriteStream class>>crlf... from
> Grease-Pharo-Core ...
>
> So I'm just wondering if it is intentional to _not_ support Seaside3.0
> on Pharo1.0.
>
> There are similar problems with earlier versions of Pharo 1.1
> (Pharo-1.1-11411dev10.07.1 for example), but presumably the errors could
> be fixed by updating to the latest ...
>
> It would be relatively straightforward to fix the problem at the cost of
> an extra package for Pharo 1.0 (and earlier development versions of
> Pharo1.1) if you are interested in making life easier for folks using
> Seaside3.0 on those versions of Pharo.
>
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

> On 10/05/2010 01:47 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
>>
>> I am building the configuration for the 3.0 final release and I'm
>> getting a bunch of test failures in Pharo1.0:
>>
>>    1652 run, 1609 passes, 2 expected failures, 0 failures, 41 errors,
>>      0 unexpected passes
>>
>> It looks like the errors are due to the removal of Collection>>#sorted,
>> Collection>>#sorted: and WriteStream class>>crlf... from
>> Grease-Pharo-Core ...
>>
>> So I'm just wondering if it is intentional to _not_ support Seaside3.0
>> on Pharo1.0.
>>
>> There are similar problems with earlier versions of Pharo 1.1
>> (Pharo-1.1-11411dev10.07.1 for example), but presumably the errors could
>> be fixed by updating to the latest ...
>>
>> It would be relatively straightforward to fix the problem at the cost of
>> an extra package for Pharo 1.0 (and earlier development versions of
>> Pharo1.1) if you are interested in making life easier for folks using
>> Seaside3.0 on those versions of Pharo.
>>
>>
>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>
>
> Is there a definitive yes/no on the question of whether Seaside 3.0 is
> supported on Pharo 1.0?
>
> Like I said, I'm concerned about folks already deployed on Pharo 1.0, but
> maybe I shouldn't be. We're talking about 3 methods being the difference
> between running on Pharo1.0 and not...
>
> Pardon for asking but a definitive "Seaside 3.0 is not supported on Pharo
> 1.0" statement is what I am looking for ...
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>

> 2010/10/7 Julian Fitzell<[hidden email]>:
>> Well, I personally have no issue with someone maintaining a Grease
>> platform package for Pharo1.0 so I'm reluctant to say it's not
>> supported. But I think this falls into the same camp as Squeak or any
>> other platform: we'll do whatever we can to support people who want to
>> maintain support on other platforms but the core team is focusing on
>> just one (currently, the current stable version of Pharo).
>
> If it's really just the three overrides then it would be easy to do.
> OTOH Dale was the first requesting it. If there's strong demand for it
> then I think it would be worth the effort, otherwise not.

> On 10/07/2010 02:26 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
>>
>> 2010/10/7 Julian Fitzell<[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> Well, I personally have no issue with someone maintaining a Grease
>>> platform package for Pharo1.0 so I'm reluctant to say it's not
>>> supported. But I think this falls into the same camp as Squeak or any
>>> other platform: we'll do whatever we can to support people who want to
>>> maintain support on other platforms but the core team is focusing on
>>> just one (currently, the current stable version of Pharo).
>>
>> If it's really just the three overrides then it would be easy to do.
>> OTOH Dale was the first requesting it. If there's strong demand for it
>> then I think it would be worth the effort, otherwise not.
>
> Exactly,
>
> I just happened to have grabbed a older Pharo1.1 image for updating and
> whamo I got a bunch of test failures ... tests that passed before upgrading
> to Seaside3.0 final and Grease final.
>
> When I announce the availability of the new configurations for Grease and
> Seaside3.0, I will have to tell folks the configs no longer work on
> Pharo1.0, to cut off the (presumably) inevitable this doesn't work on
> Pharoxyz emails .... So I am still at a loss what I should say ...
>
> For me it would have been easier to just support Pharo1.0 than it has been
> to write the collection of emails, but I am concerned that if/when someone
> says "Seaside3.0 blah doesn't work on Pharo1.0" that the response will be
> "don't use Pharo1.0" if that will be the case, then lets up front say that
> Seaside3.0/Grease are no longer supported on Pharo1.0 and be done with it...
>
> It is trivial to support Pharo1.0 with Metacello, so this isn't about the
> amount of work, but about _your_ intent.
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>

> Seaside 3.0 is finished. Pharo 1.0 is finished. If it can be made to
> work easily then, sure, go for it. We don't have to promise that any
> future versions of Seaside will keep working with 1.0.
>
> Julian
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Dale Henrichs<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 10/07/2010 02:26 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/10/7 Julian Fitzell<[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I personally have no issue with someone maintaining a Grease
>>>> platform package for Pharo1.0 so I'm reluctant to say it's not
>>>> supported. But I think this falls into the same camp as Squeak or any
>>>> other platform: we'll do whatever we can to support people who want to
>>>> maintain support on other platforms but the core team is focusing on
>>>> just one (currently, the current stable version of Pharo).
>>>
>>> If it's really just the three overrides then it would be easy to do.
>>> OTOH Dale was the first requesting it. If there's strong demand for it
>>> then I think it would be worth the effort, otherwise not.
>>
>> Exactly,
>>
>> I just happened to have grabbed a older Pharo1.1 image for updating and
>> whamo I got a bunch of test failures ... tests that passed before upgrading
>> to Seaside3.0 final and Grease final.
>>
>> When I announce the availability of the new configurations for Grease and
>> Seaside3.0, I will have to tell folks the configs no longer work on
>> Pharo1.0, to cut off the (presumably) inevitable this doesn't work on
>> Pharoxyz emails .... So I am still at a loss what I should say ...
>>
>> For me it would have been easier to just support Pharo1.0 than it has been
>> to write the collection of emails, but I am concerned that if/when someone
>> says "Seaside3.0 blah doesn't work on Pharo1.0" that the response will be
>> "don't use Pharo1.0" if that will be the case, then lets up front say that
>> Seaside3.0/Grease are no longer supported on Pharo1.0 and be done with it...
>>
>> It is trivial to support Pharo1.0 with Metacello, so this isn't about the
>> amount of work, but about _your_ intent.
>>
>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev