Ok guys, would you rather stop that today, it is the last day od the year! Having such tone today is not a good sign for a new year of Pharo.
In any case, Happy New Year to all Pharoers and as much cooperation as possible in 2012, for a common goal, not selfish interests! Best regards Janko S, Lukas Renggli piše: > 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." >> > -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565
