On 01/19/2011 10:28 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date
configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking
in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current
configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us
build tools on top of it...
Agreed!
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think that the a good working model is to store the
ConfigurationOfXXX in the project repository along with the project
mcz files.
When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to
MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a
GemSource MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations
that have been ported to GemStone .... when a new version for
GemStone is available.
I would not recommend that configurations be removed from
MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that
expect to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there
are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version
of the configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository.
Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is
critical to require that all configurations be copied to
MetacelloRepository.
It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for
configurations and until a better solution comes along it serves
that purpose. BTW, I think Stef has plans to provide better
solutions for Pharo...
Dale
On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
It depends where you look at.
ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists
in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The
latter
one being the official one, the former one being very
outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove
ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository
to lower
the confusion.
Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this
should be
the reference IMHO.
Laurent,
I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those
files. And in
the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not
to put it
in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I
want to
avoid is having multiple different files floating around
that are
edited in an inconsistent way.
I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should
be put in
MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at.
But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ?
Laurent
Norbert
Norbert
On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
> The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote:
>
>> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because
blessing was #release. But I agree to change.
>>
>> Laurent
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend
on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in
PharoDev. I
would also strongly support the idea of removing
XMLSupport
from PharoDev.
>>>
>>
>> What would be important: we need the latest version in
Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version
where the
tests are green?
>> (not of XML, but in general)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from
Pharo 1.2.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last
version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is
loaded an
old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan
2010). I
did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using
ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this
operation
impossible.
>>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last)
version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2
should not
load XMLSupport at all.
>>>>
>>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an
old version, also considering that the last
XMLSupport has
nice and useful features like the
XMLPluggableElementFactory.
>>>>
>>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by
default you let people free to use the version that
they like.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Fabrizio
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
<http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
>>>
>>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
<http://www.marcusdenker.de/>
>> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
<http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
>
> "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair,
> you will end up with a messy haircut."
>
>
