It could be easily done, but in a ugly way to me. The only thing you know about a configuration package is that its name begins with 'ConfigurationOf', or it has some specific methods. There is no data above a package to know if it is a regular one or a configuration. Am I wrong ? If there is, it can be done in a better way.
Franck From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:04:09 +0000 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Projects are slowly getting to live... and impressive you guys are busy non stop, I am feel so glad Pharo move forward so fast. No I did not mean to remove configurations but rather hide them, or group them together so they dont display together with other packages. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:01 AM stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without capturing dependencies. Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package Manager. [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of using external packages such as a Configuration. So we will see how it goes. Stef One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them. I really like this new approach great work. On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get. Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
