Seaside, Traits, portability
Locked
 
|
On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've felt many > times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak and it does > nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast majority of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect community, and that's very important to me and to many others. For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside any time even vaguely soon. Avi _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
I was part making a point, I've found the folks on the list very resourceful and inspiring and try to do my part in turn when I can. We've invested a lot of money in seaside and related projects in this part year alone (so did you, I'm sure), therefore I'm very much cautios any time something like this comes up that may mean I will have to start maintaining a separate branch to keep the codebase stable and expriment-free :) _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
I had to agree with Avi. Let's separate academical (so they can experiment) from productive proposals (so they can produce real value) cheers, Sebastian > -----Mensaje original----- > De: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre > de Avi Bryant > Enviado el: Lunes, 30 de Abril de 2007 14:46 > Para: Seaside - general discussion > Asunto: [Seaside] Seaside, Traits, portability > > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've felt > > many times that you couldn't care less about anyone not > using squeak > > and it does nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the > list for good. > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast > majority of people on this list care deeply about keeping > Seaside portable across dialects - I would guess that at this > point it's the largest portable Smalltalk codebase, and the > largest cross-dialect community, and that's very important to > me and to many others. > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in > production is seriously proposing that we make it depend on > Traits - as far as I know, nobody uses Traits in production, > period. By all means, let's have an academic discussion > about the costs and benefits of Traits, but let's do it with > a very clear understanding that it is indeed academic, and > *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside any > time even vaguely soon. > > Avi > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
2007/4/30, Avi Bryant <[hidden email]>:
> On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've felt many > > times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak and it does > > nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast majority > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect community, > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. netstyle.ch does. it's only one Trait used for custom Component and Task root classes but it's in an production application. Cheers Philippe > By all means, let's > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside > any time even vaguely soon. > > Avi > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
On 30 avr. 07, at 19:45, Avi Bryant wrote: > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've >> felt many >> times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak >> and it does >> nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast majority > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect community, > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside > any time even vaguely soon. sorry avi but traits are solid and good. adrian rewrote them from scratch. But may be adrian code is only good for seaside. Then with this attitude nothing will change. So what you are proposing is to oppose people like lukas and philippe that would benefit from traits to production quality. Why can't we have a third path. Let lukas and philippe have a branch using traits and flattening them for VW and seeing if it breaks so badly that we can all laugh. You know that traits are good for reuse and that library and large applications would benefit from them. We are writing a new stream library because the one of squeak sucks. But the squeak community should tell us and we stop to work on that and we can also simply throw away the work on adrian. Stef _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
just a last remark:
traits do not exist at run-time AT ALL. They are just structuring static elements. So this to me like saying that using MC is not good to run squeak application. I do not really understand the problem that traits have. May be I'm too stupid to understand. especially since for ports the code can be without traits. Stef On 30 avr. 07, at 19:45, Avi Bryant wrote: > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've >> felt many >> times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak >> and it does >> nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast majority > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect community, > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside > any time even vaguely soon. > > Avi > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
Stephane, I'll tell you where exactly things have gone wrong for me. We are using VisualWorks for a reason and for someone to suggest that I should ask Cincom to get my money back on this list is somewhat interesting, because the whole idea behind seaside like many have pointed out since is to have a framework that's clean and portable. We can't afford such arrogance simply because we don't have enough traction and mindshare to justify it and the only chance for us to ever get any of either is to work together instead of doing what we're doing now. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
2007/5/1, Boris Popov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Stephane, I'll tell you where exactly things have gone wrong for me. We are > using VisualWorks for a reason and for someone to suggest that I should ask > Cincom to get my money back on this list is somewhat interesting, because > the whole idea behind seaside like many have pointed out since is to have a > framework that's clean and portable. It's not, seriously. It was never meant to be. It's full of squeakisms. Don't get me started on the whole #asString -> #displayString issue, or where you can use Strings and where Symbols, and oh Squeak:Date and Seaside:Date, #asUnicode, #= on Sets or the ugly hack that is SeasidePlatformSupport. Don't even think about WideStrings and the whole sever adapter issue. Smalltalk is just not portable, that's sad but true. It works on VisualWorks because continuously a lot of effort is put into it by Michel. Up to now the Dolphin port was a one time thing done by Avi for money. Yes I know Esteban is working on a port of 2.7 but I haven't heard anything from from him since February. I have high hopes for the Gemstone port and if they can pay (!) someone like Michel maintaining it then chances of success are good. Don't get me wrong, I am very much interested in increasing portability. I'm just saying how things are. If you don't like something, we are open for your suggestions or even better: code. Cheers Philippe > We can't afford such arrogance simply > because we don't have enough traction and mindshare to justify it and the > only chance for us to ever get any of either is to work together instead of > doing what we're doing now. > > Having said all that, have you heard of anyone trying to port MC to > VisualWorks? Its something I'm going to play with on my flight back home > from Toronto after my talk, but thought I'd check here first in case someone > had started already. > > Avi, not sure if Colin is on this list, perhaps he might know of such > attempts? > > Cheers! > > -Boris > (Sent from a BlackBerry) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [hidden email] > <[hidden email]> > To: Seaside - general discussion > <[hidden email]> > Sent: Tue May 01 01:31:05 2007 > Subject: Re: [Seaside] Seaside, Traits, portability > > just a last remark: > traits do not exist at run-time AT ALL. They are just structuring > static elements. > So this to me like saying that using MC is not good to run squeak > application. > I do not really understand the problem that traits have. May be I'm > too stupid to understand. > especially since for ports the code can be without traits. > > Stef > > On 30 avr. 07, at 19:45, Avi Bryant wrote: > > > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've > >> felt many > >> times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak > >> and it does > >> nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast majority > > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect community, > > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's > > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline Seaside > > any time even vaguely soon. > > > > Avi > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
Exactly, hence me trying to figure out a way to contribute directly versus relying on Michel so much. As far as GemStone, from what I've heard here so far they are staying away from modifying the base code, so porting should be more or less straightforward for them, but certainly, they do need someone like Michel to keep things evolving and improving if this takes off and I have a sense they understand that. _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)
Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do not have adequate browsers to code with them, not portability since we can remove them. I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about that. Stef > Stephane, I'll tell you where exactly things have gone wrong for > me. We are using VisualWorks for a reason and for someone to > suggest that I should ask Cincom to get my money back on this list > is somewhat interesting, because the whole idea behind seaside like > many have pointed out since is to have a framework that's clean and > portable. We can't afford such arrogance simply because we don't > have enough traction and mindshare to justify it and the only > chance for us to ever get any of either is to work together > instead of doing what we're doing now. > > Having said all that, have you heard of anyone trying to port MC to > VisualWorks? Its something I'm going to play with on my flight back > home from Toronto after my talk, but thought I'd check here first > in case someone had started already. > > Avi, not sure if Colin is on this list, perhaps he might know of > such attempts? > > Cheers! > > -Boris > (Sent from a BlackBerry) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [hidden email] <seaside- > [hidden email]> > To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> > Sent: Tue May 01 01:31:05 2007 > Subject: Re: [Seaside] Seaside, Traits, portability > > just a last remark: > traits do not exist at run-time AT ALL. They are just > structuring > static elements. > So this to me like saying that using MC is not good to run > squeak > application. > I do not really understand the problem that traits have. > May be I'm > too stupid to understand. > especially since for ports the code can be without traits. > > Stef > > On 30 avr. 07, at 19:45, Avi Bryant wrote: > > > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've > >> felt many > >> times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak > >> and it does > >> nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast > majority > > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect > community, > > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's > > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline > Seaside > > any time even vaguely soon. > > > > Avi > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
2007/5/2, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]>:
> Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. > I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do > not have adequate browsers > to code with them, Yeah, tools that are 90% done and no progress in sight is definitely a bummer. This would have made a great SoC project IMHO. The bugs in ClassBuilder (Tratis having the same user twice) aren't helping either. Cheers Philippe > not portability since we can remove them. > I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about that. > > Stef > > > Stephane, I'll tell you where exactly things have gone wrong for > > me. We are using VisualWorks for a reason and for someone to > > suggest that I should ask Cincom to get my money back on this list > > is somewhat interesting, because the whole idea behind seaside like > > many have pointed out since is to have a framework that's clean and > > portable. We can't afford such arrogance simply because we don't > > have enough traction and mindshare to justify it and the only > > chance for us to ever get any of either is to work together > > instead of doing what we're doing now. > > > > Having said all that, have you heard of anyone trying to port MC to > > VisualWorks? Its something I'm going to play with on my flight back > > home from Toronto after my talk, but thought I'd check here first > > in case someone had started already. > > > > Avi, not sure if Colin is on this list, perhaps he might know of > > such attempts? > > > > Cheers! > > > > -Boris > > (Sent from a BlackBerry) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: [hidden email] <seaside- > > [hidden email]> > > To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Tue May 01 01:31:05 2007 > > Subject: Re: [Seaside] Seaside, Traits, portability > > > > just a last remark: > > traits do not exist at run-time AT ALL. They are just > > structuring > > static elements. > > So this to me like saying that using MC is not good to run > > squeak > > application. > > I do not really understand the problem that traits have. > > May be I'm > > too stupid to understand. > > especially since for ports the code can be without traits. > > > > Stef > > > > On 30 avr. 07, at 19:45, Avi Bryant wrote: > > > > > On 4/29/07, Boris Popov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >> Why be so cynical? Different strokes for different folks. I've > > >> felt many > > >> times that you couldn't care less about anyone not using squeak > > >> and it does > > >> nothing but motivate me to unsubscribe from the list for good. > > > > > > Boris, please don't unsubscribe. I think you'll find the vast > > majority > > > of people on this list care deeply about keeping Seaside portable > > > across dialects - I would guess that at this point it's the largest > > > portable Smalltalk codebase, and the largest cross-dialect > > community, > > > and that's very important to me and to many others. > > > > > > For that reason and others, nobody who uses Seaside in production is > > > seriously proposing that we make it depend on Traits - as far as I > > > know, nobody uses Traits in production, period. By all means, let's > > > have an academic discussion about the costs and benefits of Traits, > > > but let's do it with a very clear understanding that it is indeed > > > academic, and *not* a proposal that's going to affect mainline > > Seaside > > > any time even vaguely soon. > > > > > > Avi > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Seaside mailing list > > > [hidden email] > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
> Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
> I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do > not have adequate browsers > to code with them, not portability since we can remove them. > I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about that. Since you ask me directly I rephrase here what I already discussed with Avi: - In favor: Personally I would like to use traits for Seaside (as well as for Magritte and Pier), as it would avoid a big deal of code duplication and would effectively help solving many problems related to bugs not getting fixed in all places. Traits have absolutely no effect on the runtime (the VM has a flattened view) and they don't affect portability with other versions of Squeak and Smalltalk dialects. Current development of Seaside happens solely in Squeak by a very small group of contributors. - Against: The current state of the Traits implementation makes it impossible for me to use them. I need a working and up-to date browser that is fully traits aware. Moreover I require that Monticello loads the Traits transparently, this means that if I load a package in 3.9 I get traits and if I load the same package anywhere else I get a flattened view (I believe this is possible in a backward compatible way). Next I want to be able to flatten them properly, not with one of those scripts floating around but in a propre way built into the system. As long as these 3 things are missing I think it is unrealistic to use Traits. To come back to the initial proposal that caused this discussion: "Modelling the attribute modules of XHTML using Traits". Interestingly the XHTML modules are defined very similarly to Traits (multiple inheritance without state). There are two orthogonal goals here: (1) to avoid code duplication and, (2) to model attributes so that they are only defined on tags they support. I think the best idea for now is to implement the attributes too high in the hierarchy like it is for #tabIndex:, #accessKey: and many other attributes already today. This follows (1) but sacrifies (2). If we had a meta-model we could even validate that according to a specified DTD during the development phase. Cheers, Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
Tx!
This fits better the arguments I can understand :) >> Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. >> I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do >> not have adequate browsers >> to code with them, not portability since we can remove them. >> I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about that. > > Since you ask me directly I rephrase here what I already discussed > with Avi: > > - In favor: Personally I would like to use traits for Seaside (as well > as for Magritte and Pier), as it would avoid a big deal of code > duplication and would effectively help solving many problems related > to bugs not getting fixed in all places. Traits have absolutely no > effect on the runtime (the VM has a flattened view) and they don't > affect portability with other versions of Squeak and Smalltalk > dialects. Current development of Seaside happens solely in Squeak by a > very small group of contributors. > > - Against: The current state of the Traits implementation makes it > impossible for me to use them. I need a working and up-to date browser > that is fully traits aware. Moreover I require that Monticello loads > the Traits transparently, this means that if I load a package in 3.9 I > get traits and if I load the same package anywhere else I get a > flattened view (I believe this is possible in a backward compatible > way). Next I want to be able to flatten them properly, not with one of > those scripts floating around but in a propre way built into the > system. As long as these 3 things are missing I think it is > unrealistic to use Traits. > > To come back to the initial proposal that caused this discussion: > "Modelling the attribute modules of XHTML using Traits". Interestingly > the XHTML modules are defined very similarly to Traits (multiple > inheritance without state). There are two orthogonal goals here: (1) > to avoid code duplication and, (2) to model attributes so that they > are only defined on tags they support. I think the best idea for now > is to implement the attributes too high in the hierarchy like it is > for #tabIndex:, #accessKey: and many other attributes already today. > This follows (1) but sacrifies (2). If we had a meta-model we could > even validate that according to a specified DTD during the development > phase. > > Cheers, > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
In reply to this post by Lukas Renggli
I thought Damian's Squeak-dev images had working Traits support, no? If
so, why don't you go ahead with Pier and Magritte and see how it goes. If it works well and maintains portability then it's easier for everyone to think about a Seaside traits branch. Lukas Renggli wrote: >> Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. >> I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do >> not have adequate browsers >> to code with them, not portability since we can remove them. >> I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about that. > > Since you ask me directly I rephrase here what I already discussed > with Avi: > > - In favor: Personally I would like to use traits for Seaside (as well > as for Magritte and Pier), as it would avoid a big deal of code > duplication and would effectively help solving many problems related > to bugs not getting fixed in all places. Traits have absolutely no > effect on the runtime (the VM has a flattened view) and they don't > affect portability with other versions of Squeak and Smalltalk > dialects. Current development of Seaside happens solely in Squeak by a > very small group of contributors. > > - Against: The current state of the Traits implementation makes it > impossible for me to use them. I need a working and up-to date browser > that is fully traits aware. Moreover I require that Monticello loads > the Traits transparently, this means that if I load a package in 3.9 I > get traits and if I load the same package anywhere else I get a > flattened view (I believe this is possible in a backward compatible > way). Next I want to be able to flatten them properly, not with one of > those scripts floating around but in a propre way built into the > system. As long as these 3 things are missing I think it is > unrealistic to use Traits. > > To come back to the initial proposal that caused this discussion: > "Modelling the attribute modules of XHTML using Traits". Interestingly > the XHTML modules are defined very similarly to Traits (multiple > inheritance without state). There are two orthogonal goals here: (1) > to avoid code duplication and, (2) to model attributes so that they > are only defined on tags they support. I think the best idea for now > is to implement the attributes too high in the hierarchy like it is > for #tabIndex:, #accessKey: and many other attributes already today. > This follows (1) but sacrifies (2). If we had a meta-model we could > even validate that according to a specified DTD during the development > phase. > > Cheers, > Lukas > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Seaside, Traits, portability
|
|
Yes!
damien and lukas are adding the minimal traits support to OB. Nile is really cool. I hope that people will like it. In fact I do not know why but some simple menu to define traits and other siple functionality disappeared when we released 3.9 :( > I thought Damian's Squeak-dev images had working Traits support, > no? If so, why don't you go ahead with Pier and Magritte and see > how it goes. If it works well and maintains portability then it's > easier for everyone to think about a Seaside traits branch. > > Lukas Renggli wrote: >>> Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying. >>> I'm just saying that the argument against trait could be that you do >>> not have adequate browsers >>> to code with them, not portability since we can remove them. >>> I would like to hear what philippe and lukas are thinking about >>> that. >> >> Since you ask me directly I rephrase here what I already discussed >> with Avi: >> >> - In favor: Personally I would like to use traits for Seaside (as >> well >> as for Magritte and Pier), as it would avoid a big deal of code >> duplication and would effectively help solving many problems related >> to bugs not getting fixed in all places. Traits have absolutely no >> effect on the runtime (the VM has a flattened view) and they don't >> affect portability with other versions of Squeak and Smalltalk >> dialects. Current development of Seaside happens solely in Squeak >> by a >> very small group of contributors. >> >> - Against: The current state of the Traits implementation makes it >> impossible for me to use them. I need a working and up-to date >> browser >> that is fully traits aware. Moreover I require that Monticello loads >> the Traits transparently, this means that if I load a package in >> 3.9 I >> get traits and if I load the same package anywhere else I get a >> flattened view (I believe this is possible in a backward compatible >> way). Next I want to be able to flatten them properly, not with >> one of >> those scripts floating around but in a propre way built into the >> system. As long as these 3 things are missing I think it is >> unrealistic to use Traits. >> >> To come back to the initial proposal that caused this discussion: >> "Modelling the attribute modules of XHTML using Traits". >> Interestingly >> the XHTML modules are defined very similarly to Traits (multiple >> inheritance without state). There are two orthogonal goals here: (1) >> to avoid code duplication and, (2) to model attributes so that they >> are only defined on tags they support. I think the best idea for now >> is to implement the attributes too high in the hierarchy like it is >> for #tabIndex:, #accessKey: and many other attributes already today. >> This follows (1) but sacrifies (2). If we had a meta-model we could >> even validate that according to a specified DTD during the >> development >> phase. >> >> Cheers, >> Lukas >> > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |