[Seaside-dev] Re: [Seaside] Re: Metacello packaging

[Dale Henrichs]

Julian Fitzell wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich at vmware.com> wrote:
>> So the questions become:
>>
>>  1. Should Slime be loaded by default when loading Grease?
>>
>>    If no, we can split Slime out into a group that is not loaded
>>    by default.
> 
> I *think* that if you are explicitly loading Grease yourself, and your
> platform supports Slime, you should get Slime by default.

This is the current behavior.

In the earlier discussions about Magritte, Grease and Slime you made the 
following statements:

   "The correct answer is that Grease should *not* load Slime by default"

and

   "I still don't think that loading Grease should require you to load
    the refactoring engine."

I'm not trying to incite a riot, but your current position seems to 
differ from your earlier statements.

Given the confusion with Magritte and your statements below and your 
current intent I think the following groups make sense:

   'Core'        = #('Grease-Core')
   'Core Tests'  = #('Grease-Tests-Core')
   'Slime'       = #('Grease-Slime')
   'Slime Tests' = #('Grease-Tests-Slime)
   'Tests'       = #('Core Tests' 'Slime Tests')
   'default'     = #('Slime')

The expression:

   ConfigurationOfGrease project latestVersion load

will load Slime and the Core.

Seaside-Core in ConfigurationOfSeaside30 will specify a dependence upon 
the 'Core' group in Grease and Seaside-Slime will specify a dependence 
upon the 'Slime' group in Grease.

Magritte-Model in CionfigurationOfMagritte2 will specify a dependence 
upon the 'Core' group in Grease only.

I think this will make everyone happy.

> 
>>  2. Should Slime be loaded by default when loading Seaside3.0?
>>
>>    If yes, that's easy to arrange.
>>
>>    If no:
>>
>>      Should Slime be included in one of the other Seaside3.0 groups
>>      like the development group _or_ do you want an independent Slime
>>      group so that Slime can be loaded "through
>>      ConfigurationOfSeaside30" _or_ do you expect someone to explicitly
>>      load Slime "through ConfigurationOfGrease"?
> 
> No. There's a Seaside-Slime package in Seaside that adds
> Seaside-specific rules. It depends on having Slime and I guess should
> be in the Development group.
> 
> Seaside-Core should depend on Grease-Core. Even if we had other Grease
> packages (-Filesystem, -Sockets, whatever) at some point in the
> future, I imagine applications might depend only the specific pieces
> they need. That minimizes the amount of stuff that has to be pulled
> in. Maybe we also want a Grease group that pulls in all the code but
> not the tests or Slime... not sure.
> 
> Sound plausible?

I think my suggestion above covers the Grease-related groups for Seaside.

If the Grease groups make sense, then I think we can start focusing on 
the details of the Seaside-specific groups

Dale