[Meta] Standard packages?
stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Mon Jul 23 15:01:01 UTC 2007
I would love to have that!
I have the impression that the only way there is to have tests (for
what is really possible to tests).
We could really have a task force focussing on key packages and
working so that they are sharable and that
when there is a change we know it, identify it, and can control the
evolution of the package.
On 23 juil. 07, at 01:36, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi -
> I just spent some in 3.10 and while I felt that there wasn't much
> that personally excited me about it, there were still plenty of
> fixes that were interesting enough for me so that I'll have to
> spend significant time to integrate them into Croquet. And if you
> look at what has recently gone into Croquet  I'm pretty sure
> you'll find the same the other way around (for example the font
> caching fixes come directly from Croquet). After looking over 3.10
> it again occurred to me how splintered the larger Squeak community
> is when it comes to some of the core parts of its software.
> I think that at some point we'll have to admit that using
> individual images is a reality that we simply need to accept and
> deal with it accordingly. And one of the key parts is to understand
> how to share code across these different images.
> The trouble with code sharing is that the most important packages
> are still completely bound to particular images. There is no
> "Collection" package that I can load in from 3.4 through 3.10 and
> expect it to work. There is no common "Numbers", no "Streams", no
> "Files", Sockets, Sound, Exceptions, anything package. While there
> are plenty of application-level packages that support a range of
> images, there is almost nothing at the core of Squeak that can be
> used across different images.
> And I'm curious if there is interest in changing this. At least on
> the level where it's fairly non-controversial (e.g., I wouldn't be
> planning on starting with metclasses, m17n, or compiler) it could
> be a pretty interesting for various projects to be able to have a
> common code base, with decent tests to ensure it runs on all the
> the supported image versions etc. So that, for example, if there is
> an improvement to Dictionary you can benefit from it implicitly
> regardless of whether you are using a particular image or not.
> In short, what I'm looking for is something like a set of "standard
> packages" which are supported beyond the particular image they
> apply to. In thinking about this, two questions came to my mind:
> 1. Is this technically feasible? I'm not certain about this given
> how tightly various of the core packages depend on the particular
> idiosyncrasies of particular images. But it'd be interesting to
> find out whether (for example) we could make up a "standard Number
> package" that can easily be installed and supported in various
> 2. Perhaps more importantly, is there any interest in doing
> something like this? Since it would most certainly require serious
> work it could only be done if other people feel the same like I do
> and are willing to put in some time and effort. If people are happy
> with where they are today (which is quite possible) then this is a
> no-win situation.
> *If* something like this works, it may be one step out of the image
> lock-in that we currently endure. It could also help focusing
> various (currently completely disjoint) parts of the community on
> help improving a shared base.
> Comments welcome.
> - Andreas
>  https://lists.duke.edu/sympa/arc/croquet-dev/2007-05/msg00035.html
More information about the Squeak-dev