Hi Stef,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: ... This is certainly an important topic and it warrants its own discussion. I think we should not distinguish between MooseDev and MooseDeployment :). My vision goes like this: - Moose is a platform that works for multiple technologies. Perhaps we can distinguish between what makes sense for Java or for a language like C#, but the differences would be small and would not warrant different distributions.
- Moose is a platform for Pharo as well, although not many are seeing it like that. This means that the tools we have with Moose should be used for analyzing Pharo. - We could distinguish between a Pharo only distribution and the distribution for all other languages. Actually, this is what we have with the GToolkit project: a Pharo specific toolset. However, we still want to have the Pharo-specific tools inside a Java-specific distribution given that we want people to develop their own tools fast. And to debug them. And to inspect them. So we want all the Pharo specific tools in the large distribution, too. All in all, we now go towards: - GToolkit for everyone that wants to develop in Pharo only. - Moose for every other language (and it includes GToolkit).
Cheers, Doru "Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
I know but now Moose is a large kitchen sink. I will discuss with the synectique guys because I think that when we deploy a tool we do not need half of Moose and after we cry for space. So we will see what we will do. Right now I do not want to manage my own Moose but if the company needs it, then I will do it because I'm not spending my week-ends and more just for the fun of it. I have better things to do. With your vision Pharo would be the sum of all its projects and I want exactly the inverse: a small core and a modular infrastructure so that people can load what they need. Now you know like me that this is not in opposition with the other scenario ;) I think that learning how to deploy is the best way to get the best of both scenario: (1) customed under control deployement (2) full Moose.
We just want clients using our tools because this is even more difficult to find the other clients. If we encounter clients that can accept to understand that they can script their own tools this will be a different story but a modular infrastructure support both.
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
It could be a sink, but it's actually not large. With everything included, you get around 2200 classes (if you take Mondrian out, it's about 2000). Pharo 2.0 has something like 10'000 classes.
I think you are mixing arguments. The Moose image is somewhere around 50 MB right now, but that is without any cleaning. It's true that it would be cool to have it smaller. Your space problems start when you run into 1GB or so, so the initial space is not really the issue.
This does not sound constructive. It seems to me that all the issue was generated by the loading problem. However, this has almost nothing to do with Moose, but with the support that comes with the underlying infrastructure. Every significant Pharo project is likely to have the same loading problems, and I was thinking that we are working towards a solution that will benefit everyone. And yes, we need better tool support but I think that finally we start to see the road.
So, let's have a dialogue. You make explicit what you need and then we see what the real issue is. But, I think you know that :).
But, Moose is modular. We have build jobs for every important component to ensure that each of them is loadable separately. All you have to do is pick the components you want, and assemble your own image. It's just that we release one image for simplicity of communication, not of deployment.
I am sure we can get more modular (for example, FAMIX and Finder could be modularized), but we need the use cases to figure out what is the most useful way to cut.
I really see no problem with deploying, but perhaps I do not understand what you refer to.
Let's get more concrete. What part of the current Moose Suite would you not need in your image? Or better yet, what are parts that you need in your image? Cheers, Doru
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
configuration validator but I want to finish my open tasks). It just took me friday full day and sunday full day. I wonder why I got all the problems showing up in my face. My remark is that if a business reason led me to think that we should not ship half of moose then - either the current config support it - or it does not and we can modify - or I will do it in my corner. No more. In particular yesterday I was happy to find the bug in the dependencies because else I was thinking that I would have to use reloader because I do not want to have to deal with Metacello internals.
so it means that when we will need it we will face problems (i'm not talking about mondrian, glamour, GTtoolkit here) more Moose.
I'm not thinking that we should over optimise. Just exercise modularity And right now I see a lot of cherry picking to build a smaller Moose.
For me the fact that I found in one try around more than 10 dependency problems made me think that we do not exercise the modular aspects of the infrastructure. Else we would have discovered them long time ago.
So far I do not know. I was just making sure I can reload everything and looking at the list I was a bit skeptical that we need all that. I will discuss with usman and guillaume when they are back from holidays because like that we can try to have a small moose to find dependency problems.
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Actually, I do not understand how you got the problems, and I did not. For example, you can load the existing 4.8.1-snapshot from ConfigurationOfMoose and it loads in Pharo 2.0 (this was before your effort).
Fair enough. Let's make sure that we end up doing option 1 or 2 :)
Agreed. But, for that we need use cases.
Let's start with one and we go from there. I have a hard time choosing because I am too involved.
Actually, the real problem is that the loading order of Metacello is not reliable in all cases. I mean, we are loading Moose using those dependencies all the time, but we did not get into your problems. I even released a temporary 4.8.1 and it still loads properly. So, our problem is that we have no bell ringer. And now I think this problem exists in most Metacello configurations.
Great. Let's do that. Doru
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
On Aug 12, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
can lead to a really different traversal when the dependencies are lose. What is quite strange is that synectique just depends on Moose and does not do any cherry picking of potential subpackages right now. So I was thinking that I would not find errors since you could reload it when I started but when I saw that he had so many missing dependencies it was good because it was not a problem in snapshotcello (beside the bug I found) and metacello.
The first step I would do is to go over the configurations and perform some extract methods (for projects dependencies). Second I should find some times to build a validator. May be looking at the group could be also a point. Also the examples could be an clear group (may be there are) "Core" not sure what it measn With Example With Test
Yes and this is what I want to see if synectique wants to invest there. We will see. Now I will systematically rebuilt the shipped versions with snapshotcello.
We could go over the list and check if we want that. - May be an easy one would be tests - then Pharo development
Especially if synectique config would be tricky I would understand but there are trivial.
First I will redo the process with the latest moose and synectique. To see if all the changes got absorbed. And since I have the mails and my old image I should be able to track the changes. Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |