Em 29/12/2011 16:48, Benoit St-Jean < [email protected] > escreveu: Benoit,
You rise some important points, this is my attempt to contribute: > What if a class was deleted in Pharo? We should get a thorough analysis of the case and understand if the deleted class does indeed makes its lacking or if the package in SS has to be re-engineered to be compatible with the Pharo view. Then two outcomes are possible: a recipe for the similar cases where the lack of the deleted class is created or we understand the deletion as a mistake and reintroduce or replace it with a new implementation of it. > What if some methods are missing? Same general methodology: were they suppressed but replaced by others? Or were they removed due being only specific to some package and did not belong to the places they were in the classes hierarchy? Perhaps were they just 'syntactic sugar' and thus have to be replaced by another code snippet? > What if it's referring to a Preference while we dumped > this in favor of settings ? What if it's using some Morphic stuff > that was cleaned up. Your comment assumes that everything on > SqueakSource is outdated an unusable. > > FYI, lots of packages there (that are 5 years old) ***do load > cleanly*** in Squeak 4.3... Makes sense, after of all there is called SqueakSource, isn't it? > Besides, there are LOTS of Squeak users that maintain their stuff > only for Squeak without considering Pharo. To which I think the whole Stef's post applies! If _we_ Pharo comunity long or want that package in our changed Smalltalk, we should adapt it. Our wage is that in time the package originators may become convinced of the advantages of: or switching to Pharo, or maintaining in both 'dialects'. > Should we maintain those > packages by adding some "PharoCompatibility" classes or we should > start our own repository ? I'm a firm believer that '"PharoCompatibility" classes' are no-no. We rather have a repo which has packages adapted to Pharo as Stef described. > Finally, it's not because a package is 5 years old that it's not > useful... If it's there and freely available, why would we throw > all this code to the trash ? To reinvent the wheel ? I think we > should seriously consider porting a lot of this stuff to our own > repository before the distance between Squeak and Pharo gets too > big. I think each package needs to be considered in isolation, no general rule can be created for all cases without incurring in the risk of going irrational... My 0.0199999.... -- Cesar Rabak
