Could someone from Cincom please have a look this and check whether it's ok and would make it possible to remove the Squeak::Date and Seaside::Date classes from the Seaside port on CST?
Cheers Philippe
Phillipe,
We haven't even looked at the 2.9 development yet. We're currently finishing the first release of WebVelocity on top of 2.8. That's why you don't hear much from us at this point and we probably won't be able to start with 2.9 until at least the end of March, when we hope to go beta with it.
I personally am quite interested in your adaptor refactorings. We have a few specific issues about interfacing Seaside with HTTP servers and hope to suggest/make some improvements in that area. But at this point we are running against deadlines and can't afford the distraction.
Of course we don't expect the 2.9 development to stay still waiting for us. We'll just have to catch up when we get a chance. We do follow the mailing list though, and most of the changes discussed so far, including this one about the Date don't sound like something that should give us trouble. But it's hard to participate in a discussion about specifics when you're not working on the same version.
Martin
Philippe Marschall wrote:
Could someone from Cincom please have a look this and check whether it's ok and would make it possible to remove the Squeak::Date and Seaside::Date classes from the Seaside port on CST?
Cheers Philippe _______________________________________________ seaside-dev mailing list seaside-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
2008/2/29, Martin Kobetic mkobetic@cincom.com:
Phillipe,
We haven't even looked at the 2.9 development yet. We're currently finishing the first release of WebVelocity on top of 2.8. That's why you don't hear much from us at this point and we probably won't be able to start with 2.9 until at least the end of March, when we hope to go beta with it.
I personally am quite interested in your adaptor refactorings. We have a few specific issues about interfacing Seaside with HTTP servers and hope to suggest/make some improvements in that area. But at this point we are running against deadlines and can't afford the distraction.
Of course we don't expect the 2.9 development to stay still waiting for us. We'll just have to catch up when we get a chance. We do follow the mailing list though, and most of the changes discussed so far, including this one about the Date don't sound like something that should give us trouble. But it's hard to participate in a discussion about specifics when you're not working on the same version.
I see. I hope you understand that these long feedback loops are a problem for us. We have heard hints about what you would like to have changed for half a year now without anything concrete. There is a certain risk that Seaside changed enough in the mean time that you'll have to redo some of your work for Seaside 2.9.
Cheers Philippe
Philippe Marschall wrote:
Could someone from Cincom please have a look this and check whether it's ok and would make it possible to remove the Squeak::Date and Seaside::Date classes from the Seaside port on CST?
Cheers Philippe
seaside-dev mailing list seaside-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
seaside-dev mailing list seaside-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
I see. I hope you understand that these long feedback loops are a problem for us. We have heard hints about what you would like to have changed for half a year now without anything concrete. There is a certain risk that Seaside changed enough in the mean time that you'll have to redo some of your work for Seaside 2.9.
I'm also going to stop updating the port until it restabilizes; I hope that the project issue tracking helps making my suggestions concrete too, but I understand that a longer feedback loop can be counterproductive to that. I think the situation is the same for Cincom.
Anyway, porting to GNU Smalltalk from scratch was one or two days of part-time work, with only a handful of bugs showing up after SUnit tests were clean, so it should not be that bad. :-)
Paolo
2008/3/3, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
I see. I hope you understand that these long feedback loops are a problem for us. We have heard hints about what you would like to have changed for half a year now without anything concrete. There is a certain risk that Seaside changed enough in the mean time that you'll have to redo some of your work for Seaside 2.9.
I'm also going to stop updating the port until it restabilizes; I hope that the project issue tracking helps making my suggestions concrete too, but I understand that a longer feedback loop can be counterproductive to that. I think the situation is the same for Cincom.
I hope the module layout we have for Seaside 2.9 will make updating the port in the future simpler now that you did the initial work.
Anyway, porting to GNU Smalltalk from scratch was one or two days of part-time work, with only a handful of bugs showing up after SUnit tests were clean, so it should not be that bad. :-)
Honestly I was very impressed by the number of bugs you reported and even more so by the amount of fixes you contributed. IMHO the GST port made Seaside better. Thanks for that.
Cheers Philippe
Anyway, porting to GNU Smalltalk from scratch was one or two days of part-time work, with only a handful of bugs showing up after SUnit tests were clean, so it should not be that bad. :-)
Honestly I was very impressed by the number of bugs you reported and even more so by the amount of fixes you contributed. IMHO the GST port made Seaside better. Thanks for that.
Every port does, but most bugs were just undocumented requested features of the platform support package. I also was impressed by how easy it was to port.
Paolo
Philippe Marschall wrote:
I see. I hope you understand that these long feedback loops are a problem for us.
Yes, and we do appreciate the good will to solicit and accommodate our proposals as well.
We have heard hints about what you would like to have changed for half a year now without anything concrete. There is a certain risk that Seaside changed enough in the mean time that you'll have to redo some of your work for Seaside 2.9.
I think that's a fair price for setting our priorities the way we did. What I hate most is that we might be bringing up issues that were discussed months earlier and you guys will have most likely moved on since. I guess we'll just have to make our case that much more compelling and shoulder the additional burden to the extent possible. Obviously, I'm not happy with this situation either, but I don't see any other solution at the moment. At this point I just wanted to explain what's going on on our side atm.
Martin
seaside-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Martin Kobetic -
Paolo Bonzini -
Philippe Marschall