in fact, I already dropped old Voyage session cache for the one in 
SmalltalkHub, which was cooler than mine :)
now is turn to Nico to check what can he use from Voyage, and if that makes 
sense ;)

Esteban


On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Petton <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> Yes, in fact with Esteban we thought about merging our work or maybe I
> will drop my layer and use Voyage.
> 
> Nico
> 
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:30:30 -0700, Francois Stephany 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ok!
>> 
>> I've managed to load it but haven't tried to run it (yet). I almost gave 
>> up before realising that KO is the prefix used by Kalingrad :)
>> 
>> It's cool to browse a real project using Seaside and Mongo. The way 
>> Smalltalkhub maps Mongo and Smalltalk objects is interesting. It seems 
>> to be more explicit than the Voyage approach. Have you considered to use 
>> Voyage or to extract the smalltalkhub mapper to a indenpendent package 
>> (a bit like mongoid, moped and origin in ruby[1])?
>> 
>> Anyway, thanks for open sourcing it!
>> 
>> Fa
>> 
>> [1]http://mongoid.org/en/mongoid/index.html
>> 
>> On 20/09/12 03:32, Nicolas Petton wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, there's no configuration yet.
>>> 
>>> Nico
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:05:10 -0700, Francois Stephany 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Is there a Metacello configuration for it?
>>>> I'm trying to load it by hand but guessing the dependencies is tricky
>>>> for me.
>>>> 
>>>> On 16/09/12 12:56, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2012-09-16, at 21:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good work !
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Where can the code be found/seen ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> all in the latest pharo SmalltalkHubRepository browse.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am especially interested in the last point. Has it something to do 
>>>>>> with (using) Zn ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> yes, we basically did a HEAD request and returned false on 404, however
>>>>> Zn does 3 or so retries, and thus makes everything slow :). I don't know 
>>>>> what
>>>>> the side-effects are, but we reduce the retryCount to 0, to get low 
>>>>> response times.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I thought that upon a valid 404 response there is no retry needed? (but I 
>>>>> guess
>>>>> I miss something here :P)
>>>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Petton
> http://nicolas-petton.fr
> 


Reply via email to