Posted by
Lukas Renggli on
Oct 28, 2011; 12:55pm
URL: https://forum.world.st/Is-RPackage-dead-tp3947548p3947798.html
In 2008 I wrote:
There is a clean 1:1 mapping between categories/protocols and
packages. If X is the package name, then ...
1. Category X is the core-package.
2. Category X-y is a sub-package y.
3. Protocol *X are extension methods.
4. Protocol *X-y is an extension to the y protocol.
I see this as a way to move from the naming conventions to a first
class package model. It is critical to have a browser that hides those
naming conventions, while still keeping them (at the moment) for
backward compatibility.
Since there is no clean migration path, I vote for (A).
When looking at Pharo today I don't see the current packaging system
(or the lack thereof) as a major problem. The current infrastructure
works reasonably well and does not hinder progress. What is really
painful is that everything breaks with every release. Thus, what would
be way more important is a module/namespace system so that we can load
and run different versions of the same code without interfering. In
the current state Pharo 1.3 is a dead end, because I will never be
able to load my code into Pharo 1.4.
Lukas
On 28 October 2011 14:40, Benjamin <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> so what do we do with RPackage
>> - (A) throw away 4 months or more of my work. I feel sorry for Nautilus and I could understand that benjmain gets really pissed off.
>> but this means that we will stay with the old browsers. Sounds like a promising future.
>> - (B) use it with a mapping one to one with category (and yes people will have to change the configurations). This is done.
>> - (C) somebody takes three hours to look at what I did and think a bit but does not tell me that this is easy but propose
>> a real plan to get towards a solution.
>>
>> Marcus, igor your wish to have labels (I added them to RPackage). I fixed SystemAnnouncement.
>> Now without help it will not work (if you do not put energy on the table). I have a lot of wishes too and something else to do too.
>> Because we have categories in addition… I discussed with Benjamin and we can fill up RPackageOrganizer with MCWorkingCopies but this
>> means that we will have to match the complete system with subcategories (
>> Graphics-Core
>> should match Graphics*
>>
>> So since it does not seem that we are pragmatic or that we want to make progress on this topic, I will do A and we will wait for concrete
>> discussions. Apparently nobody care anyway. So this should not be important after all.
>>
>> Stef
>
>
> Cool ...
>
> Ben
>
>
>
--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch