need your attention: Package

>
> Dale
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> we need to think about package:
>>
>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>> instead.
>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>
>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>> - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>> - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>> - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>> so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>
>> - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>> and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>
>> Now my time is short so I will
>> - probably not implement tags
>> - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>> code.
>> - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>> like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>> - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>> associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>> and change the packages accordingly).
>> - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>
>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>
>

>
> On 19 March 2011 19:17, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by
>> RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can
>> improve the way we use it.
>>
>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure
>> and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and
>> easy to make mistakes...
>>
>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>
>> Guille
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1
>>> would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within
>>> Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other
>>> folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files
>>> created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories?
>>> It will not be pretty.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for
>>> alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always
>>> been a hack....
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps
>>> RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the
>>> packaging schemes ...
>>>
>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and
>>> those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply
>>> continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2
>>> packages with a different rule set ...
>>>
>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to
>>> make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools
>>> could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>
>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports
>>>> well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to
>>>> remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>> instead.
>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it
>>>> would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition
>>>> because:
>>>>       - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>       - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to
>>>> packages
>>>>       - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it
>>>> would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>       so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>
>>>>       - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same
>>>> contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>       and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>
>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>       - probably not implement tags
>>>>       - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the
>>>> necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>       code.
>>>>       - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because
>>>> some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>        like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>       - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question
>>>> is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>       associate classes to packages because we can end up with
>>>> overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>       and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>       - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern
>>>> matching.
>>>>
>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>

> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>
> Guille
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Stef,
>
> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>
> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>
> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>
> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>
> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>
> Dale
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
> > Hi guys
> >
> > we need to think about package:
> >
> > right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
> > We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
> > instead.
> > RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
> >
> > Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
> >       - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
> >       - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
> >       - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
> >       so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
> >
> >       - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
> >       and to have tags to only represent categories.
> >
> > Now my time is short so I will
> >       - probably not implement tags
> >       - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
> >       code.
> >       - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
> >        like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
> >       - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
> >       associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
> >       and change the packages accordingly).
> >       - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
> >
> > So if you have suggestion please talk now.
> >
> >
> > Stef
>
>
>

>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>
>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>
> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
> but the matching semantics is not good.
>
>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>
>> Guille
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Stef,
>>
>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>
>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>
>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>
>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>
>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> we need to think about package:
>>>
>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>> instead.
>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>
>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>      - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>      - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>      - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>      so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>
>>>      - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>      and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>
>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>      - probably not implement tags
>>>      - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>      code.
>>>      - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>       like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>      - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>      associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>      and change the packages accordingly).
>>>      - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>
>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stef
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>
>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>
>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>
>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>
>>> Guille
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>
>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>
>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>
>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>> instead.
>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>     - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>     - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>     - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>     so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>
>>>>     - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>     and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>
>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>     - probably not implement tags
>>>>     - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>     code.
>>>>     - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>      like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>     - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>     associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>     and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>     - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>
>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "When people care, great things can happen."
>
>
>
>

>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for all this effort.
>>
>> I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best.
>>
>> RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category.
>>
>> The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages.
>
> this sentence is not clear doru.
> Do you mean that a RPackage should contain classes that are contained in matching PackageInfo package?
> I mean
> RFoo
> contains RFoo and RFoo-zork categories classes?

>> In this way, we would be able to:
>> - load existing MC without problems
>> - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects
>
> let us see
> imagine the following scenaro
>
> PI-Foo contains
> Foo
> Foo-Zork
>
> =>
> We get
> RFoo
> and  RFoo-Zork
>
> we can save and people can load
> now
>
> I add a category Foo-Two
> in pharo I get an extra package
> we should modify metacelloConfig
> ok people can load it too
>
> in other system it will be in Foo
> ok we can load it
>
>
> Now if we should preserve the current loading semantics **package creation**
>
> when PI-Foo contains
> Foo
> Foo-Zork
>
> if we should create only one RFoo containing all the FooCat
> then we arrive to the point where this is not clear that
> when I add a new cat it will not be in.

>
>> Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too.
>>
>> The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping.
>
> yes
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>>
>>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>>
>>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>>
>>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>>
>>>> Guille
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Stef,
>>>>
>>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>>
>>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>>
>>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>
>>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>>
>>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>>> instead.
>>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>>    - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>>    - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>>    - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>>    so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>>
>>>>>    - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>>    and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>>    - probably not implement tags
>>>>>    - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>>    code.
>>>>>    - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>>     like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>>    - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>>    associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>>    and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>>    - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "When people care, great things can happen."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>>> Hi Stef,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for all this effort.
>>>
>>> I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best.
>>>
>>> RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category.
>>>
>>> The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages.
>>
>> this sentence is not clear doru.
>> Do you mean that a RPackage should contain classes that are contained in matching PackageInfo package?
>> I mean
>> RFoo
>> contains RFoo and RFoo-zork categories classes?
>
> No. I meant we have a 1-1 mapping to categories. So, you will get multiple RPackages in the system: RFoo, RFoo-zork ...
>
>>> The next step is to provide a tool that provides only a 1-1 mapping between MC and RPackages that we can use for publishing.
>>
>> The problem is not publishing the problem is assigning classes to packages.
>
> I think that if we split loading and publishing logic as a transition phase it would solve the problem, and I actually believe that you are talking about a similar thing (see below).
>
>>> In this way, we would be able to:
>>> - load existing MC without problems
>>> - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects
>>
>> let us see
>> imagine the following scenaro
>>
>> PI-Foo contains
>> Foo
>> Foo-Zork
>>
>> =>
>> We get
>> RFoo
>> and  RFoo-Zork
>>
>> we can save and people can load
>> now
>>
>> I add a category Foo-Two
>> in pharo I get an extra package
>> we should modify metacelloConfig
>> ok people can load it too
>>
>> in other system it will be in Foo
>> ok we can load it
>>
>>
>> Now if we should preserve the current loading semantics **package creation**
>>
>> when PI-Foo contains
>> Foo
>> Foo-Zork
>>
>> if we should create only one RFoo containing all the FooCat
>> then we arrive to the point where this is not clear that
>> when I add a new cat it will not be in.
>
> The solution I proposed was a new publishing interface for MC that works with the 1-1 mapping between RPackage and PackageInfo. Like this, for saving we would be force to save the new package.
>
> So, in your case, when you would open the NewMC, you would see in the list:
>
> Foo
> Foo-Zork
> Foo-Cat*
>
> The +Package button would disappear altogether. You would be provided with the possible things to commit, and then you would not have to think about the mapping at all. All you have to do is select each of the RPackages that you want to commit, and if there does not exist a correspondent Monticello package for it, you would be asked to provide the repo and then the creation would happen transparently.
>
>> So we could always load and create a RPackage for each Category. This would be simpler.
>
> In your solution, you would again split the mapping logic of load from that of publishing but you would change the loading mapping such that when you load you create only one category per PI. Perhaps that is indeed simpler, but you would lose the extra info of categories.
>
>
> Were my explanations clearer now?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
>>
>>> Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too.
>>>
>>> The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping.
>>
>> yes
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>>>
>>>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>>>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>>>
>>>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>>>
>>>>> Guille
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Stef,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>>>
>>>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>>>   - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>>>   - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>>>   - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>>>   so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>>>   and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>>>   - probably not implement tags
>>>>>>   - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>>>   code.
>>>>>>   - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>>>    like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>>>   - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>>>   associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>>>   and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>>>   - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "When people care, great things can happen."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one."
>
>
>
>

> Thanks doru.
> I will digest that. I have the impression that I understand your approach but would not it be error prone to select the Rpackages you want to map to MCPackage?
>
> Stef
>
>>>> Hi Stef,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for all this effort.
>>>>
>>>> I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best.
>>>>
>>>> RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category.
>>>>
>>>> The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages.
>>>
>>> this sentence is not clear doru.
>>> Do you mean that a RPackage should contain classes that are contained in matching PackageInfo package?
>>> I mean
>>> RFoo
>>> contains RFoo and RFoo-zork categories classes?
>>
>> No. I meant we have a 1-1 mapping to categories. So, you will get multiple RPackages in the system: RFoo, RFoo-zork ...
>>
>>>> The next step is to provide a tool that provides only a 1-1 mapping between MC and RPackages that we can use for publishing.
>>>
>>> The problem is not publishing the problem is assigning classes to packages.
>>
>> I think that if we split loading and publishing logic as a transition phase it would solve the problem, and I actually believe that you are talking about a similar thing (see below).
>>
>>>> In this way, we would be able to:
>>>> - load existing MC without problems
>>>> - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects
>>>
>>> let us see
>>> imagine the following scenaro
>>>
>>> PI-Foo contains
>>> Foo
>>> Foo-Zork
>>>
>>> =>
>>> We get
>>> RFoo
>>> and  RFoo-Zork
>>>
>>> we can save and people can load
>>> now
>>>
>>> I add a category Foo-Two
>>> in pharo I get an extra package
>>> we should modify metacelloConfig
>>> ok people can load it too
>>>
>>> in other system it will be in Foo
>>> ok we can load it
>>>
>>>
>>> Now if we should preserve the current loading semantics **package creation**
>>>
>>> when PI-Foo contains
>>> Foo
>>> Foo-Zork
>>>
>>> if we should create only one RFoo containing all the FooCat
>>> then we arrive to the point where this is not clear that
>>> when I add a new cat it will not be in.
>>
>> The solution I proposed was a new publishing interface for MC that works with the 1-1 mapping between RPackage and PackageInfo. Like this, for saving we would be force to save the new package.
>>
>> So, in your case, when you would open the NewMC, you would see in the list:
>>
>> Foo
>> Foo-Zork
>> Foo-Cat*
>>
>> The +Package button would disappear altogether. You would be provided with the possible things to commit, and then you would not have to think about the mapping at all. All you have to do is select each of the RPackages that you want to commit, and if there does not exist a correspondent Monticello package for it, you would be asked to provide the repo and then the creation would happen transparently.
>>
>>> So we could always load and create a RPackage for each Category. This would be simpler.
>>
>> In your solution, you would again split the mapping logic of load from that of publishing but you would change the loading mapping such that when you load you create only one category per PI. Perhaps that is indeed simpler, but you would lose the extra info of categories.
>>
>>
>> Were my explanations clearer now?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too.
>>>>
>>>> The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping.
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Doru
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>>>>
>>>>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>>>>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Stef,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>>>>  - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>>>>  - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>>>>  - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>>>>  so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>>>>  and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>>>>  - probably not implement tags
>>>>>>>  - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>>>>  code.
>>>>>>>  - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>>>>   like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>>>>  - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>>>>  associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>>>>  and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>>>>  - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>>
>>>> "When people care, great things can happen."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> I do not want to select the RPackage that maps to an MCPackage. This should be done transparently by the tool: 1 Category maps on 1 RPackage and this maps on a potential MCPackage.
>
> Let's take an example. You load the original MCPackage Foo:
>
> Foo
> Foo
> Foo-Bar
>
> We get 2 RPackages: Foo and Foo-Bar.
> We add a new RPackage Foo-Zoo.
> We open the NewMCInterface and we get three MCPackages:
> Foo
> Foo-Bar
> Foo-Zoo
>
> The Foo-Zoo MCPackage is offered without any explicit creation. Like this you take away the extra step and you control the mapping in the way you want.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2011, at 10:04, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Thanks doru.
>> I will digest that. I have the impression that I understand your approach but would not it be error prone to select the Rpackages you want to map to MCPackage?
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>>>> Hi Stef,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot for all this effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best.
>>>>>
>>>>> RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages.
>>>>
>>>> this sentence is not clear doru.
>>>> Do you mean that a RPackage should contain classes that are contained in matching PackageInfo package?
>>>> I mean
>>>> RFoo
>>>> contains RFoo and RFoo-zork categories classes?
>>>
>>> No. I meant we have a 1-1 mapping to categories. So, you will get multiple RPackages in the system: RFoo, RFoo-zork ...
>>>
>>>>> The next step is to provide a tool that provides only a 1-1 mapping between MC and RPackages that we can use for publishing.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not publishing the problem is assigning classes to packages.
>>>
>>> I think that if we split loading and publishing logic as a transition phase it would solve the problem, and I actually believe that you are talking about a similar thing (see below).
>>>
>>>>> In this way, we would be able to:
>>>>> - load existing MC without problems
>>>>> - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects
>>>>
>>>> let us see
>>>> imagine the following scenaro
>>>>
>>>> PI-Foo contains
>>>> Foo
>>>> Foo-Zork
>>>>
>>>> =>
>>>> We get
>>>> RFoo
>>>> and  RFoo-Zork
>>>>
>>>> we can save and people can load
>>>> now
>>>>
>>>> I add a category Foo-Two
>>>> in pharo I get an extra package
>>>> we should modify metacelloConfig
>>>> ok people can load it too
>>>>
>>>> in other system it will be in Foo
>>>> ok we can load it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now if we should preserve the current loading semantics **package creation**
>>>>
>>>> when PI-Foo contains
>>>> Foo
>>>> Foo-Zork
>>>>
>>>> if we should create only one RFoo containing all the FooCat
>>>> then we arrive to the point where this is not clear that
>>>> when I add a new cat it will not be in.
>>>
>>> The solution I proposed was a new publishing interface for MC that works with the 1-1 mapping between RPackage and PackageInfo. Like this, for saving we would be force to save the new package.
>>>
>>> So, in your case, when you would open the NewMC, you would see in the list:
>>>
>>> Foo
>>> Foo-Zork
>>> Foo-Cat*
>>>
>>> The +Package button would disappear altogether. You would be provided with the possible things to commit, and then you would not have to think about the mapping at all. All you have to do is select each of the RPackages that you want to commit, and if there does not exist a correspondent Monticello package for it, you would be asked to provide the repo and then the creation would happen transparently.
>>>
>>>> So we could always load and create a RPackage for each Category. This would be simpler.
>>>
>>> In your solution, you would again split the mapping logic of load from that of publishing but you would change the loading mapping such that when you load you create only one category per PI. Perhaps that is indeed simpler, but you would lose the extra info of categories.
>>>
>>>
>>> Were my explanations clearer now?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping.
>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Doru
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>>>>>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Stef,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dale
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>>>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>>>>> - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>>>>> - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>>>>> - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>>>>> so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>>>>> and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>>>>> - probably not implement tags
>>>>>>>> - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>> - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>>>>>  like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>>>>> - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>>>>> associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>>>>> and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>>>>> - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "When people care, great things can happen."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
>
>
>
>
>

> Hi Stef,
>
> Thanks a lot for all this effort.
>
> I will reiterate again the original idea, which I still believe would work best.
>
> RPackage is meant to become the organization entity in the image. MCPackage will still be needed for versioning. Furthermore, for a while, categories will still remain in the system for a while as an implementation detail. RPackages mirror each category.
>
> The first step would be to keep loading from Monticello exactly like it is now: it will create Categories, and this will mirror in RPackages.
>
> The next step is to provide a tool that provides only a 1-1 mapping between MC and RPackages that we can use for publishing.
>
> In this way, we would be able to:
> - load existing MC without problems
> - publish new MCPackages that will be compatible with other dialects
>
> Indeed, Metacello configurations will need modifications, but we have a smooth path to it. The Metacello configurations are still typically used only for loading and that will still continue to work just like they do now. With the Metacello Browser things will change, but then again we can change that tool, too.
>
> The only problem is how to define class extensions. I believe the * magic mapping is in MC. That will create problems, but for a while, I think we can still rely on this mapping.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2011, at 22:20, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, for smooth transition, why not just replace usages of PackageInfo by RPackage keeping everything working as today?  And after that, we can improve the way we use it.
>>>
>>> In two words, why not replace only infrastructure instead of infrastructure and behavior at the same time?  Doing both together is kind of complex and easy to make mistakes...
>>
>> yes this is what cyrille started to do. On top of RPackage so may be cleaning that is the way to go.
>> but the matching semantics is not good.
>>
>>> But maybe it's easier (or nicer) to replace everything together... :P
>>>
>>> Guille
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, MC2 has been designed from the beginning to allow for alternate package definition schemes ... category-based packaging has always been a hack....
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is time to start a push towards MC2 and perhaps RPackage-based packaging could become part of MC2 or at least one of the packaging schemes ...
>>>
>>> For transition, MC1 would continue to use category-based packages and those projects that wanted to preserve MC1 compatibility would simply continue to name the categories to make MC1 happy and use RPackage for MC2 packages with a different rule set ...
>>>
>>> One of the problems with MC2 has been the lack of a compelling reason to make the transition to a new system ... RPackage and the associated tools could be the compelling reason to move to MC2...
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> we need to think about package:
>>>>
>>>> right now we have a new implementation that is fast, robust and supports well a new generation of tools (glamour, nautilus...).
>>>> We are capturing all system events and we would be more or less ready to remove systemNotifier and use Announcement
>>>> instead.
>>>> RPackage can live also on the side of PackageInfo for a while but it would be better to have the shortest possible period of co-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Now one of the problem I see is that we may not have a smooth transition because:
>>>>     - Rpackage does not rely on category tagging matching.
>>>>     - It is simpler to have a mapping from current categories to packages
>>>>     - Now it means that we could load a package in the system and it would be turned into several RPackages
>>>>     so this means that configuration would have to be adapted.
>>>>
>>>>     - marcus was suggesting me to create a package with the same contents as the one of loaded by MC.
>>>>     and to have tags to only represent categories.
>>>>
>>>> Now my time is short so I will
>>>>     - probably not implement tags
>>>>     - check again the implementation of RPackage and in particular the necessary compatibility layer, because I saw some strange
>>>>     code.
>>>>     - check the MC dependency on method category conventions, because some logic is not defined in the right place
>>>>      like overrides in the MC tools and not in the PackageInfo
>>>>     - check how a package gets created when loaded: the key question is that there is a problem to rely on categories to
>>>>     associate classes to packages because we can end up with overlapping (normally the IDE captures the category renames
>>>>     and change the packages accordingly).
>>>>     - we should not rely on most-specific-category kind of pattern matching.
>>>>
>>>> So if you have suggestion please talk now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "When people care, great things can happen."
>
>
>
>

>>
>>> Stef,
>>>
>>> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files created in Pharo  that no longer align with the class and method categories? It will not be pretty.
>>
>> No this is not a problem, because we can save the package with the * notation and category even if we do not need that.
> ...........
>>
>> Now what other system like gemstone could do is also to copy the pharo package implementation because these are two classes.
>
> Stef,
>
> Over the long haul I would agree that migration to the newer model is a good idea and gemstone could install the code (when tool support becomes available in GemStone) and as long as there is a transition period where RPackage isn't _required_, then I think that things can work smoothly...