I really like the abstraction that Voyage provides. We could check if it would make sense to use it for SmalltalkHub. I really hate duplicated efforts.
Nico On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:11:33 +0200, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > -- Nicolas Petton http://nicolas-petton.fr
