What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Guillermo Polito
What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?

I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"

Guille
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Stéphane Ducasse
Ok for me.
Package Maps Loader

Stef

> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>
> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>
> Guille


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.

Bill

[*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?

Ok for me.
Package Maps Loader

Stef

> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>
> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>
> Guille



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Camillo Bruni-3

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
In the past, that hasn't been universal.  More recently, I was told to *always* load specific versions; never use the symbolic versions.  We have to get our story straight on this.




________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Guillermo Polito
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 2) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 3) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 4) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Guillermo Polito
I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
In reply to this post by Guillermo Polito
Sorry, too many counter-examples.  The situation has improved with time, but overall, it's a complicated mess with instructions that change almost weekly.  Just being honest.



From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 2) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 3) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 4) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
In reply to this post by Guillermo Polito
It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Guillermo Polito
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.

I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know.  What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed.  If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :).

Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to:
- know them
- tell the mantainers
- try to fix one?
- not yelling in general because that does not work :S.

From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of:
- Glamour
- OpenDBXDriver
- Glorp + GlorpDBX
- ScriptManager

so they can load in latest 1.4.  But I can't be everywhere yet :P.

Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so  I expect most users are moving their stuff soon.

Cheers,
Guille
 




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work.  It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam.  "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes.

There are wide-spread problems.  Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo.

I don't know how else to put it.





From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.

I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know.  What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed.  If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :).

Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to:
- know them
- tell the mantainers
- try to fix one?
- not yelling in general because that does not work :S.

From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of:
- Glamour
- OpenDBXDriver
- Glorp + GlorpDBX
- ScriptManager

so they can load in latest 1.4.  But I can't be everywhere yet :P.

Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so  I expect most users are moving their stuff soon.

Cheers,
Guille
 




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Guillermo Polito


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work.  It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam.  "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes.

There are wide-spread problems.  Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo.

But then you have the same problem if people commit packages that do not work. :S

Providing working versions and tagging them, right now is a people problem, not a tool problem.  And the same happens with python, java, javascript, .net, ruby, the OS software...

 

I don't know how else to put it.






From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.

I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know.  What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed.  If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :).

Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to:
- know them
- tell the mantainers
- try to fix one?
- not yelling in general because that does not work :S.

From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of:
- Glamour
- OpenDBXDriver
- Glorp + GlorpDBX
- ScriptManager

so they can load in latest 1.4.  But I can't be everywhere yet :P.

Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so  I expect most users are moving their stuff soon.

Cheers,
Guille
 




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
I'm simply saying that we have a problem.  When I first saw the config browser, I had hoped that it would bring the problem to light and spur a fix.  As it is now, there are too many quirks and caveats for the browser to have any meaning beyond a few well-behaved items.




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?



On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work.  It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam.  "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes.

There are wide-spread problems.  Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo.

But then you have the same problem if people commit packages that do not work. :S

Providing working versions and tagging them, right now is a people problem, not a tool problem.  And the same happens with python, java, javascript, .net, ruby, the OS software...

 

I don't know how else to put it.






From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.

I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know.  What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed.  If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :).

Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to:
- know them
- tell the mantainers
- try to fix one?
- not yelling in general because that does not work :S.

From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of:
- Glamour
- OpenDBXDriver
- Glorp + GlorpDBX
- ScriptManager

so they can load in latest 1.4.  But I can't be everywhere yet :P.

Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so  I expect most users are moving their stuff soon.

Cheers,
Guille
 




From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?

I meant:

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

:P

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...

1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.

Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.

Guille


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
>
> Bill
>
> [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)

seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:

ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable


> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
>
> Ok for me.
> Package Maps Loader
>
> Stef
>
>> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
>> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
>>
>> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
>>
>> Guille






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Stéphane Ducasse

On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> I'm simply saying that we have a problem.  When I first saw the config browser, I had hoped that it would bring the problem to light and spur a fix.  As it is now, there are too many quirks and caveats for the browser to have any meaning beyond a few well-behaved items.

It will.
Everybody should use symbolic versions to milestone their works and clients can then update.

Stef


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
That would be nice to see.



________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 3:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?

On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> I'm simply saying that we have a problem.  When I first saw the config browser, I had hoped that it would bring the problem to light and spur a fix.  As it is now, there are too many quirks and caveats for the browser to have any meaning beyond a few well-behaved items.

It will.
Everybody should use symbolic versions to milestone their works and clients can then update.

Stef



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Camillo Bruni-3
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K

On 2012-04-27, at 20:38, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> I'm simply saying that we have a problem.  When I first saw the config browser, I had hoped that it would bring the problem to light and spur a fix.  As it is now, there are too many quirks and caveats for the browser to have any meaning beyond a few well-behaved items.
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:20 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work.  It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam.  "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes.

contrary to what you experience, I have almost never had issues with Configurations(only with mine in the beginning when learning on how to use Metacello)

have you read the Metacello chapter of pharo by example? maybe you want improve that here and there so the information persists!

> There are wide-spread problems.  Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo.
>
> But then you have the same problem if people commit packages that do not work. :S
>
> Providing working versions and tagging them, right now is a people problem, not a tool problem.  And the same happens with python, java, javascript, .net, ruby, the OS software...
>
>  
>
> I don't know how else to put it.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized.
>
> I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know.  What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed.  If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :).
>
> Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to:
> - know them
> - tell the mantainers
> - try to fix one?
> - not yelling in general because that does not work :S.
>
> From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of:
> - Glamour
> - OpenDBXDriver
> - Glorp + GlorpDBX
> - ScriptManager
>
> so they can load in latest 1.4.  But I can't be everywhere yet :P.
>
> Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so  I expect most users are moving their stuff soon.
>
> Cheers,
> Guille
>  
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM
>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
>
> I meant:
>
> Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
> Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
> Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.
>
> :P
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Wat?  Probably there was a misunderstood...
>
> 1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine.
> 2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version.  Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :).
> 3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine.
>
> Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus.
> Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside.
> Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image.
>
> Guille
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration        browser more visible?
>
> On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
> > Can they really download stuff?  How much?  Until the configurations are truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what we have yet to do in the way of packaging.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, something like #loadStable.  Then a config browser can work as advertised, and I fear, not until.  Prove me wrong :)
>
> seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code:
>
> ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable
>
>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser        more visible?
> >
> > Ok for me.
> > Package Maps Loader
> >
> > Stef
> >
> >> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like that?
> >> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools?
> >>
> >> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can download stuff!!!"
> >>
> >> Guille


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Sean P. DeNigris
Administrator
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K
Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time?
I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child grow up...

For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic versions (which were sorely needed).

The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on someone manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. Without these, the API is hidden away in the project class.

Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo to load some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I think the system browser would be much more helpful.

Dale, what do you think about all this?

HTH,
Sean

p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects and updating the configs...
Cheers,
Sean
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K
It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to have some base support in the core image.  But I have had experts tell me to *never* load a symbolic version.  There is a gap to close...



________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sean P. DeNigris [[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the      configuration   browser more visible?

Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
>
> Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions
> over time?
>

I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child grow
up...

For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic versions
(which were sorely needed).

The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on someone
manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. Without
these, the API is hidden away in the project class.

Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo to load
some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I think the
system browser would be much more helpful.

Dale, what do you think about all this?

HTH,
Sean

p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects and
updating the configs...

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What about making the configuration browser more visible?

Dale Henrichs
Bill,

If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice.

I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should expect them to close it...

Dale
----- Original Message -----
| From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
|
| It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to
| have some base support in the core image.  But I have had experts
| tell me to *never* load a symbolic version.  There is a gap to
| close...
|
|
|
| ________________________________________
| From: [hidden email]
| [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sean P.
| DeNigris [[hidden email]]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM
| To: [hidden email]
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the      configuration
|   browser more visible?
|
| Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
| >
| > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary
| > instructions
| > over time?
| >
|
| I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child
| grow
| up...
|
| For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
| loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic
| versions
| (which were sorely needed).
|
| The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
| preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on
| someone
| manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods.
| Without
| these, the API is hidden away in the project class.
|
| Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo
| to load
| some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I
| think the
| system browser would be much more helpful.
|
| Dale, what do you think about all this?
|
| HTH,
| Sean
|
| p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects
| and
| updating the configs...
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
| Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
|
|

12