[squeak-dev] Re: Packages, Packages, Packages
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Dec 13 08:04:44 UTC 2009
Miguel Cobá wrote:
>> No, "we" don't accept this. You do. Don't speak for others. And this is
>> about the meta information, not the actual package contents. If Monticello
>> would have taken the same stance it would've never gotten where it is today.
>> MC is what it is precisely because it works in *every* Squeak version under
>> the sun, and precisely because it has an explicit, declarative model for its
>> contents (instead of requiring code to run to produce that model). As a
>> consequence, MC is for example capable of parsing traits definitions even in
>> systems that don't have traits. That ensures great robustness, and a level
>> of interoperability without which it wouldn't have become the SCM of choice
>> for Squeak.
> Umm, the last time I check the squeak has its own customized version of MC
> and it isn't even commiting back to Colin's repository.
> And ther is MC1.5 MC2, and several other forks in several squeak forks.
> Saying that MC es the MC of choice is as saying that Word is the word
> processor of choice just because is found in every machine. This view omits
> the incompatibilities between the different versions of them.
But they interoperate. That is the key point. MC gets the
interoperability from the fact that the MC packages DO NOT call methods
on Monticello. If they did (as Metacello does) than the divergence would
be absolutely deadly. As a consequence, Metacello is likely to be much
more affected by similar divergence if that ever happens (hard to predict).
>> Aren't you mistaking a few things here? This discussion started with me
>> laying out the options of the *existing* solutions and what would need to be
>> done to make one of them work. Then you came along selling the shiny new
> I am not selling anything. You asked for options for package management systems
> and I was amazed by the omision of other tools like Metacello and Bob.
Point taken. And yes, I was looking for alternatives.
> Finally, I want to close this long thread by just asking (I think that
> this has already happened) that you take a look in metacello as an
> option for package management for squeak.
Indeed. And I'm not done with that. It just turns out that Metacello has
weakness alongside with its strengths which shouldn't be a shocking
More information about the Squeak-dev