[Pharo-project] [Seaside] Re: [Metacello] What is the plan with Pharo changes?

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Sat Aug 4 09:01:25 CEST 2012


BTW we discussed about it yesterday and I proposed that we keep the FileDirectory package for compatibility even if we are in 2.0.
Dale I imagine that it would solve your problem.
Stef


On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> Dale 
> 
> Can we use an old version of Metacello that we maintain?
> Then we migrate when needed and this is ok.
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
>> | > What I'd _like_ to do for Metacello and Pharo-2.0 is to make the
>> | > changes against the MetacelloPreview release, which I'm managing
>> | > on github.
>> | >
>> | > The MetacelloPreview is aimed at an eventual 1.0 release of
>> | > Metacello (hopefully in the fall).
>> | >
>> | > I would _like_ Metacello-Base to be included in the Pharo-2.0 base
>> | > image, the sooner the better and I'm poised to pull the trigger on
>> | > that, but the recent changes have crippled FileTree ...
>> | >
>> | yeah.. we talking about it all the time "how good it would be to have
>> | metacello preloaded in image" :)
>> | 
>> | > So until FileTree is functional again, I can't really do anything
>> | > with Pharo-2.0...
>> | >
>> | > Hacking Metacello to get it running on Pharo-2.0 doesn't help _me_
>> | > move forward.
>> | >
>> | 
>> | You can tell  how they could help, so they will (if they will still
>> | want), leaving less work for you :) Of course, if you need help or
>> | can
>> | see where it can be useful.
>> | But i know it is hard to coordinate & organize activities.. sometimes
>> | harder than doing everything alone. :)
>> 
>> The bigger problem is that I have to have a code base that runs on multiple platforms while being maintainable, so a "port" to Pharo-2.0 is only a starting point. In the case of FileTree, which is the real bottleneck there's a lot code that is written against the FileDirectory API, so there will need to be significant work to find a way to keep a common code base .... a much tougher problem, than "just getting it working", it can be solved with time, but I didn't budget time for an emergency rewrite of FileTree ... today.
>> 
>> | 
>> | > It is likely that I will have to redo whatever hacks that are done
>> | > to get it running on Pharo-2.0 to be compatible with the rest of
>> | > platforms that I am supporting and doing it right takes a little
>> | > more effort ...
>> | >
>> | yes.. it is hard to keep up with moving target.. But i hope this is
>> | for good of us all (FileSystem ,as to me, is no doubt much better
>> | comparing to what we had before).
>> 
>> Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with the overall goals ... I actually think that renaming FileDirectory to ObsoleteFileDirectory (and keeping the implementation) would be a good compromise ... I can easily switch class names for the short term which then buys me time for doing a proper rewrite ...
>> 
>> | 
>> | > So if you are just going to hack around to get things running on
>> | > Pharo-2.0 I guess I would have to say that I don't care what you
>> | > do, because the hacks don't make my job any easier.
>> | >
>> | > Dale
>> | >
>> | 
>> | --
>> | Best regards,
>> | Igor Stasenko.
>> | _______________________________________________
>> | seaside mailing list
>> | seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> | http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>> | 
>> 
> 
> 




More information about the Pharo-project mailing list