Let's take this on the Pharo mailing list. I do think that Seaside should be considered for being part of the Pharo infrastructure. At least the Core and the basic HTML rendering (i.e., without JQuery, Magritte and Pier).
And I also think your analysis is not accurate. Here is why (I apologize for the long list): 1. Seaside is quite well documented. There are two books describing it. There are a tone of examples documenting all sorts of features. There comments are not as good as they could be, but there are lots of comments. 2. It is quite well tested. This part can be improved, but the core has some 80% coverage. 3. I am not the only one that knows how to mingle with it. To give some examples, more than 30 people helped fixing some intricate bugs directly in the core (http://www.seaside.st/community/contributors). I would also mention that countless student projects are on Squeaksource. So, maybe it's not that difficult. 4. The core is quite stable since more than 10 years. There were changes, but they were mostly related to new features and bug fixes. 5. The main point of using this infrastructure is not to replace Morphic, and to empower more people to build more applications. For example, the Seaside counter has less than 5 lines of code in total (and one instance variable only). This is really tiny for the amount of things it offers (you can even step through it with a debugger). And it is highly extensible (subclassing), too. 6. It's actually not that large: the core has 152 classes, and if you consider all the other packages, helper classes and specialized frameworks (but without the example code), you get some 1162 classes. 7. But, perhaps the most important part is that there have been literally thousands of applications built on top of it. Not all of them are useful now, but they were when they were built. And it seems that people can build one quite fast without much knowledge of the web either. That is the whole point of this infrastructure. Esteban even used it for building commercial applications. I built a couple, too. The whole of Pier (SmallWiki) is now using this infrastructure, too. I am not saying that Seaside is perfect. There are quite a couple of things I would like to enhance (for example, the AJAX ideas from Reef, or the components from ExtJS), but it has proved to be quite solid until now. So, before dismissing Seaside, perhaps it would be useful to actually look into it. Cheers, Lukas PS: If you don't like Seaside, I might have some other additions to pharo core ready that fit as well into the template ... On 31 December 2011 17:13, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Let's take this on the Pharo mailing list. > > I do think that Glamour should be considered for being part of the Pharo > infrastructure. At least the Core and the basic Morphic rendering (i.e., > without Mondrian, EyeSee and Magritte). > > And I also think your analysis is not accurate. Here is why (I apologize for > the long list): > > 1. Glamour is quite well documented. There is a chapter describing it. There > are a tone of examples documenting all sorts of features. There comments are > not as good as they could be, but there are comments, and I can help > documenting more. > > 2. It is quite well tested. This part can be improved, but the core has some > 80% coverage. > > 3. I am not the only one that knows how to mingle with it. To give some > examples, Jorge, Damien (Cassou) and Esteban helped fixing some intricate > bugs directly in the core. Lukas built the first Seaside rendering quite > fast. I would also mention that as a student, Andrei Chis took about 1 month > of work to produce a working version of a Seaside rendering almost from > scratch. So, maybe it's not that difficult. > > 4. The core is quite stable since more than 1 year. There were changes, but > they were mostly related to bug fixes. > > 5. The main point of using this infrastructure is not to replace Morphic, but > it is to limit the maintenance of the browsers, and to empower more people to > build more browsers. For example, the Glamorous Inspector has less than 200 > lines of code in total. This is really tiny for the amount of things it > offers. And it is highly extensible, too. > > 6. It's actually not that large: the core has 36 classes, and if you consider > all the other presentations, helper classes and specialized browsers (but > without the rendering code), you get some 93 classes. > > 7. But, perhaps the most important part is that there have been literally > hundreds of browsers built on top of it. Not all of them are useful now, but > they were when they were built. And it seems that people can build one quite > fast without much knowledge of the internals either. That is the whole point > of this infrastructure. Esteban even used it for building commercial > applications. I built a couple, too. The whole of Moose is now using this > infrastructure, too. > > > I am not saying that Glamour is perfect. There are quite a couple of things I > would like to enhance (for example, the request ideas from Omnibrowser, or > the wizard workflows from Merlin), but it has proved to be quite solid until > now. > > So, before dismissing Glamour, perhaps it would be useful to actually look > into it. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Dec 31, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> You seem to say that it is bad that Glamour provides a good infrastructure >>> that appeals to people. Maybe a better conclusion is that Glamour is >>> something to be considered for the infrastructure of Pharo. >> >> Do you think so? >> I do not think that we can base our infrastructure on something that only >> one person understand and can modify. >> You will tell that this is the same for Morphic but this is not true. >> >> Stef >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Beauty is where we see it." > -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
