Hmm... Why did I only receive this email today...? Anyway, I agree that those methods should probably be in the platform-specific package. I guess we were originally trying to minimize the amount of implementation required on each platform. As long as no platform implements a method and the implementation is the same on all platforms, it is convenient to have it in only one place. As soon as a platform chooses to implement it, though, we will simply have to move it to the platform-specific package. At this point we run into the issue of having different platform packages for, say, Pharo 1.1 and 1.2.
Perhaps in the end it is simpler just to keep extensions always in the platform packages and insist that the generic packages contain only GR* classes and grease* extension methods. I'm not sure about Grease providing reference implementations of all methods it tests, though. I'm not convinced that a "gold standard" always exists, nor that it will necessarily be implemented by Grease. In many cases, we have standardized on methods that already exist in Squeak/Pharo or in some other platform. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > Julian, > > The Grease-Core package contains a mixture of things (for convenience): the > GR* family of classes using a naming convention that is unlikely to collide > with platform classes and a collection of extensions to well-known classes > using names that could very easily collide with platform methods (or prevent > a platform from implementing that method in their base system). > > The well-known class extension methods could easily be moved to the > platform-side, then as platforms adopt the Grease extensions (an obvious > goal of Grease in the first place) the platform extensions can be adjusted > accordingly...the Grease-Tests for those methods should remain so that from > the Grease-Users perspective the behavior for those methods will remain > consistent (relative to Grease) over time... > > It _would be convenient_ to preserve the current well-known class extension > method implementations so that when Grease is ported to a new platform the > "standard implementation" can be used as a bootstrap. In fact if the > well-known class extension methods were moved into a separate platform > package, then you'd have the gold standard implementation and the initial > pharo/squeak implementation rolled into one. > > In the end this doesn't sound that awful... > > Dale > > Julian Fitzell wrote: >> >> 2010/6/17 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On Jun 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >>> >>> - If included with Pharo I suggest to rename all the methods, >>> otherwise we will run into big troubles with Seaside and other >>> projects that depend on Grease. >>> >>> >>> From a philosophical standpoint, I *hate* that. this means that as a >>> plattform, we can not >>> grow and improve our libraris anymore? >>> Shouldn't be the goal that useful extensions gets adopted by the core? >> >> We will need to find a way to allow platforms to adopt Grease methods >> - I do think this is the end goal. It's a bit of a nightmare from our >> point of view because we end up having to have different Grease >> versions for different versions of the platforms, but isn't that sort >> of unavoidable in the long run anyway? Part of the reason that's so >> awful is simply due to the lack of good branching and management tools >> in our version control systems... >> >> Julian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
