Matthias Berth wrote:
> Which version of Monticello should I use / patch if I wanted to
> implement loading without popups? The one I find in the 3.9.1 dev
> image?
>
> Cheers
>   

Gary Chambers posted this to the UI list a while back:

Unfortunately MC 1.0 having non-atomic loading and a progress bar tends to
interfere...

A workaround is to temporarily modify MCPackageLoader>>basic load to this:

basicLoad
	errorDefinitions := OrderedCollection new.
	[[additions do: [:ea | self tryToLoad: ea].
	removals do: [:ea | ea unload] displayingProgress: 'Cleaning up...'.
	self shouldWarnAboutErrors ifTrue: [self warnAboutErrors].
	errorDefinitions do: [:ea | ea loadOver: (self obsoletionFor: ea)]
displayingProgress: 'Reloading...'.
	additions do: [:ea | ea postloadOver: (self obsoletionFor: ea)]
displayingProgress: 'Initializing...']
		on: InMidstOfFileinNotification
		do: [:n | n resume: true]]
			ensure: [self flushChangesFile]


Then revert the version after Widgets is loaded.




Karl


>
> Matthias
>
>
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 5:58 PM, stephane ducasse
> <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
>   
>>  On May 3, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Matthias Berth wrote:
>>
>>
>>     
>>> I see, so it is another case of the system stepping on its own feet
>>> when updating? I guess using the change set was not an option because
>>> you want everything based on Monticello? I haven't followed all the
>>> discussions around releases, so I'm just guessing.
>>>
>>>       
>>  Yes this was that.
>>  I like to eat our own dog food because this is the only way to really
>>  push it to the limits.
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Would an option for monticello, like "load the next package silently"
>>> or "load the next package with the most primitive progress information
>>> (i.e. no popups)" help in situations like this?
>>>
>>>       
>>  Yes (atomic loading would be good too) but yes!
>>  I wanted to have a look at that but was flooded by work.
>>  If you have that feature I would love to use it.
>>  Stef
>>
>>     
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>
>