Squeakfoundation July 2003

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

18 participants
21 discussions

Christopher Alexander needs some help on Squeak
by Richard Pawson 31 Jul '03

31 Jul '03

Christopher Alexander, author of 'A Pattern Language', wants to write a simulation to demonstrate the ideas in his new series of books 'The Nature of Order' (the first volume is out, and truly outstanding). I have persuaded him that Squeak is the right language to do it in and he's hooked. Chris has not programmed for some years (though he is a mathematician, originally) and needs some tutorial help on the basics of the language. He'd like to find a fluent Squeaker who'd give him a few hours of voluntary time. Chris is currently living on the South coast of the UK (West Sussex). The ideal would be a grad student in Southampton or Portsmouth Universities. (Anyone know of any Squeakers there I could contact directly?) If this doesn't work, someone on the end of a phone would be acceptable. This is an opportunity to meet and interact with one of the world's greatest contemporary thinkers. I'm sure we can help him out. (I've offered my help on the OO design side, but I'm not a sufficiently fluent programmer to give him the basics he needs at the beginning.) Just to make it clear, he wants to write the simulation himself, this is not an attempt to get someone to write it for him. If you can help, or know any contacts who might, please get back to me directly and I'll put you in touch with him. Richard Pawson

1 0

Re: LogEngine / Re: [Squeakfoundation]Ideas for 3.7
by Daniel Vainsencher 31 Jul '03

31 Jul '03

For it to be a Basic package means that it will be distributed with every official image (at least until Minimal is online). And AFAIK, we consider it a good thing that images distributed contain only stuff that their intended audience will actually need. So I rephrase, Why should it be part of Basic or any other official distribution? My questions might sound "nasty" in some way, but they are the opposite - for the huge majority of packages, SM is exactly where they should aspire to be, and defined as prereqs for as many of its rightful clients as possible. Daniel goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv(a)netvision.net.il> wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something, but let me ask the obvious question - Why > > should it be in the image? > > The obvious answer is that it shouldn't be in the image. AFAIK Giovanni > asks for it to be a "Basic" package. At least that is how I interpret > it. > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

4 3

LogEngine / Re: [Squeakfoundation]Ideas for 3.7
by Daniel Vainsencher 29 Jul '03

29 Jul '03

[Minimal Basic, Full categories] Sounds good to me, except that we don't currently have any Minimal packages, and I'm not quite clear on what they'd mean. However, tagging the Basic and Full packages seems useful (simpler "load Full" script). I'd like to say this would also give us a trivial "strip down to basic" script, but there currently is no uniform way for packages to unload themselves... Daniel goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi all! > > Giovanni Giorgi <jj(a)objectsroot.com> wrote: > > Hi all! > > I'd like to do a very small request. > > I have done a very small Log Engine > > You can see it at > > < http://sourceforge.net/projects/cat/ > > > < http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/cat/LogEngine1.0.st.gz > > > > > I'd like to put it in the next Squeak Base image, because I think it > > can be a very useful tool for > > developers. > [SNIP] > > Yes, I agree that this should be in the "Basic" Squeak. It still should > be a package though. > > And while we are on that subject (or something): > Should I create categories "Minimal", "Basic" and "Full" and put them > under... some nice top category? > > And are there other categories we would like to have? > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

4 3

Re: LogEngine / Re: [Squeakfoundation]Ideas for 3.7
by Daniel Vainsencher 29 Jul '03

29 Jul '03

Maybe I'm missing something, but let me ask the obvious question - Why should it be in the image? I think that to get included in the image, something has to provide either compelling user functionality that we don't have, or it should simplify the image by replacing more code than it takes. What, specifically, in the image requires it? Daniel "Bad Guy" Vainsencher goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Stephane Ducasse <ducasse(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote: > > Hi daniel > > > > I do not know the quality of the package, but I would really to have a > > I will glance over it. And yes, "Minimal" as a category makes no sense > since no packages will be in there. :-) I will start by creating "Full" > and "Basic". > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

LogEngine / Re: [Squeakfoundation]Ideas for 3.7
by Daniel Vainsencher 27 Jul '03

27 Jul '03

Can you explain what this is, and why we'd want it in Basic? Does anyone/any packages currently use it? Daniel goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi all! > > Giovanni Giorgi <jj(a)objectsroot.com> wrote: > > Hi all! > > I'd like to do a very small request. > > I have done a very small Log Engine > > You can see it at > > < http://sourceforge.net/projects/cat/ > > > < http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/cat/LogEngine1.0.st.gz > > > > > I'd like to put it in the next Squeak Base image, because I think it > > can be a very useful tool for > > developers. > [SNIP] > > Yes, I agree that this should be in the "Basic" Squeak. It still should > be a package though. > > And while we are on that subject (or something): > Should I create categories "Minimal", "Basic" and "Full" and put them > under... some nice top category? > > And are there other categories we would like to have? > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

RE: [Squeakfoundation]Ideas for 3.7
by Daniel Vainsencher 27 Jul '03

27 Jul '03

As a sketch on how we can do this without producing too much image generation work - At the end of one cycle we should release a VI4 image marked as experimental, along with the VI3 for general use. Either on the next cycle or the one after, we run the alpha cycle releasing VI4 images, instead of VI3 ones. Assuming no problems crop up, we make the release using VI4, with VI3 as backup. Daniel Tim Rowledge <tim(a)sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote: > "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > > I would VERY much encourage having "parallel" versions of VI3 and VI4 images > > for a couple of releases. > I think that's a very reasonable idea. > > > tim > -- > Tim Rowledge, tim(a)sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim > Oxymorons: Silent scream > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

3 3

Re: [Squeakfoundation] Fwd: Packages in both the image and SqueakMap ofPackageInfo))
by Daniel Vainsencher 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

I've looked at all pending fixes I could find to SM, and have released a new version with a couple of fixes by Ned. The relevant fix to solve this is by SFA (called "[FIX] SM-createSMDir-asm"), and should be applied to SM itself. I don't have the sm password for SM. I've tested the fix, and it works. Daniel Doug Way <dway(a)riskmetrics.com> wrote: > Marcus Denker wrote: > > >On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:13:44AM -0400, Doug Way wrote: > > > > > >>FYI, if no one objects, I will update the SM packages that are in the > >>image, by adding the latest versions to the update stream. Only the > >>SMPackageLoader and PackageInfo have newer versions on SM, so these are > >>the only two that will get updated. The version on SM is still the > >>"master", as described below. (Seems relatively safe, since there > >>haven't been big changes to either of these and they've been publicly > >>available for awhile.) This will be the last update of this sort for > >>3.6. > >> > >> > >There's that bug that you need to create the "sm" directory > >by hand. (if not, walkback). This needs to be fixed soon. > >I think Ned posted a fix... > > > > > > I see Ned has posted a few SM (and SMLoader) related fixes. These are > tricky... we probably don't want to have these fixed in the image but > not fixed in the corresponding package on SM. The package on SM should > always be the "master" copy, with the image updated occasionally from > that, otherwise things will get pretty confusing. > > Daniel may have already incorporated the SMLoader-related fixes into his > latest versions, I haven't kept track. But there is no recent version > of SM 1.0x, so we know that any recent SM fixes (such as Ned's > create-the-"sm"-directory fix) are not in any recent version. > > If these fixes are important enough for 3.6, perhaps Goran could put out > a simple SqueakMap 1.07 which includes them. (or maybe it would be > SqueakMapBase) Or if he's extra-busy with SM 1.1 or other things right > now, someone else with the SM password could do it... > > - Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

3 3

Re: [Squeakfoundation]1.02 version
by Daniel Vainsencher 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi! > > I am sitting here fixing SM (1.07) and realized that SM Package Loader > 1.02 does not contain the code in update 5294. Yes, you're right, I'm still thinking what to do about that. I really hate those dynamic "let me just peek in my namespace" Smalltalk at:s. I think the compiler should slap people on the wrist when they write such code... OTOH, I don't have a better way of implementing Ned's fix at the moment. Therefore, I'm stalling for a bit, and will probably give in and publish a version with Ned's fix soon. > I am not sure why that > update made it into the image - but anyway. I thought we intended to > keep these packages as ... packages! :-) I guess it was a mistake. Good point. And there I demonstrated precisely why it's a bad idea... ;-) > I am releasing a new SM tomorrow with the directory bug fixed (turned > out to be quite a bit of code to hack in order to make it "proper" - but > it is ok because the same code will probably be used in SM1.1). > > regards, Göran > > PS. Hmmm, the latest beta image has a weird debugger. It behaves weird > when trying to step over "self halts" (and sometimes crashes the VM) and > also when doing "debug it"... > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

1.02 version
by goran.krampe＠bluefish.se 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

Hi! I am sitting here fixing SM (1.07) and realized that SM Package Loader 1.02 does not contain the code in update 5294. I am not sure why that update made it into the image - but anyway. I thought we intended to keep these packages as ... packages! :-) I guess it was a mistake. I am releasing a new SM tomorrow with the directory bug fixed (turned out to be quite a bit of code to hack in order to make it "proper" - but it is ok because the same code will probably be used in SM1.1). regards, Göran PS. Hmmm, the latest beta image has a weird debugger. It behaves weird when trying to step over "self halts" (and sometimes crashes the VM) and also when doing "debug it"...

1 0

Re: [Squeakfoundation] Fwd: Packages in both the image and SqueakMap ofPackageInfo))
by Daniel Vainsencher 13 Jul '03

13 Jul '03

I think that if a directory doesn't exist or is invalid, then SM should assume something is wrong, ask for permission to delete all cached information, and reload everything from the server. A cache should never be the cause of a user encountering a walkback... (though in the real world of software it all too often is) Daniel goran.krampe(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi all! > > Back from fishing. > > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv(a)netvision.net.il> wrote: > > I've looked at all pending fixes I could find to SM, and have released a > > new version with a couple of fixes by Ned. > > > > The relevant fix to solve this is by SFA (called "[FIX] > > SM-createSMDir-asm"), and should be applied to SM itself. I don't have > > the sm password for SM. I've tested the fix, and it works. > > I will fix and post a new SM1.07 ASAP, today or tomorrow. I need to go > through exactly what happens one more time, I did it just before going > fishing but now I have forgotten about it. > > Just note that it really isn't as simple as just creating the directory. > The reason SM doesn't check for the existence of the directory is that > it SHOULD be there. If it isn't there then we have an SMSqueakMap > instance but no corresponding log file - not a proper situation. They > should always exist together and in synch. > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation July 2003