[squeak-dev] SqueakMap server
frank.shearar at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 08:36:56 UTC 2014
On 15 April 2014 09:13, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
> On 04/15/2014 09:47 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>> On 15 April 2014 08:34, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
>>> Frank: There is "no" client-server protocol to speak of. The client just
>>> does a HTTP GET to check the transaction counter of the domain model at
>>> SqueakMap server - if its higher than the local counter - we do another
>>> to fetch a gzipped ImageSegment of the domain model.
>> HTTP GET _is_ a client/server API. SM's protocol isn't documented, and
>> I didn't have the time to figure out the http framework, which you
>> mention below so I'll just continue there...
> Do note I wrote "no" using quotes, of course its a protocol - but its
> extremely simple. And I could have helped explain it and even document it
> but I don't recall anyone emailing me and asking about it :)
>> I guess maybe I should have been more precise in what I was
>> complaining about. I don't know much about SM's domain model, and I
>> don't care: that's an implementation detail of the service. What I
>> care about is the service's API. So if it's possible to take SM's
>> existing domain model, and SM's existing data, and just replace the
>> HttpView stuff with some new API (that's actually documented!), then
>> great! Less work for Chris Cunnington to do!
> Yes, that would be very possible IMHO. I actually thought that was what
> Chris Cunnington was doing (replacing the web UI but keeping the domain
> Also, "implementation detail" is... well, no, its a fair bit more than that
> I would say. Most web services just offer an API and keep the domain model
> on the server. SM doesn't - it offers a very simple API to actually download
> the whole model and then perform all readonly work on the client.
Ah, but that assumes that the downloaded model is isomorphic to the
internal model. That's not necessarily the case.
> And right, documentation is probably scarce, sorry about that, but you don't
> have to be snotty about it. And I think many of the classes have class
> comments and the code is probably fairly well commented too (granted it was
> a long time ago so I don't really remember).
My apologies: I didn't mean to sound snotty. Frustrated, yes, but not
snotty. (The frustration came from having to understand an entire HTTP
framework before I could start doing what I actually wanted to do.)
Good quality documentation is very expensive to produce.
>> The main point to my reply was that I'd like to see Chris Cunnington
>> supported in his experiments around SM, and I'd like to see Chris
>> Muller sleeping easily at night knowing that our core infrastructure
>> isn't going to be ripped apart during said experiments.
> Personally I applaud all efforts in any and all directions :)
> regards, Göran
> PS. Just for fun, given you have the domain model in *your* image the code
> snippet in this pdf is stuff you can easily do:
More information about the Squeak-dev