[Seaside-dev] about going alpha

[Philippe Marschall]

2008/10/4 Lukas Renggli <renggli at gmail.com>:
>>  >>  As described in comment and mails. If nobody has any opinion on this
>>  >>  I'll just do as I please. This means prefixing the categories with
>>  >>  Seaside- and naming the versions 2.8.999.alpha1.
>>  >
>>  > I don't think that the Universe approach works.
>>
>> What are the issues you see?
>
> - The integration of new universes is not possible without patching
> the main Universe distribution.

No. Right now it's a class extension on UUniverse but it could as well
be a method called #addSeasideUniverse in WAAdmin.

> - Some people are not willing to load the XML and the Universe Package
> into their deployment images.

Who? Are those the same people have at least two UI frameworks in
their deployment image and at least one interacts in interesting ways
with the GC? And EToys? Some people are always unhappy.

As I said using Universes does not prevent us from having anything besides it.

>> What do you propose instead?
>
> Something along this: http://mootools.net/core
>
> As build options I see:
>
> - Change-Set: A change-set that adds the repos and loads the selected
> packages in order from Monticello. Download and drop it onto an image
> to load Seaside.

As long as:
- it's clever enough, e.g. doesn't load anything that's already loaded
- there is a special "update to Seaside 2.9.x" change set
- you implement it
i have no issues with this.

> - Monticello-Map: Essentially the same as above, just a different
> output format. There are some people that use that.

MCMs have several issues especially regarding updating and conditional
loading. For example you can't have an MCM that updates your Seaside
installation from 2.9.0 to 2.9.1. Also you can't really have an MCM
that adds Scriptaculous. All you can have is an MCM that loads
everthing that is needed for Scriptaculous and Scriptaculous.

> - Universe-XML: Essentially the same as above, just a different output
> format. There are some people that use that.

Sorry I can't follow you. Can you elaborate a bit more?

>>  > Nobody is using
>>  > Universes (with the exception of Web-Dev Image maker)
>>
>> Do you have anything to support this claim?
>
> Over a month ago we announced Seaside 2.8.3 to be downloadable from
> SqueakMap and Universe. Due to a bug in the publishing code Seaside
> never appeared on Universe. Nobody complained.
>
> Well, maybe nobody is using Seaside ;-)

The download stats from SqS are:
Web: 10
Squeak: 30

So we seem to have 40 users. Although some might be crawlers or
counted multiple times.

>>  > If don't want XML and Universe in my
>>  > image for a deployment, what should I do then?
>>
>> What do you do if you don't want Monticello in your image for
>>  deployment? If we provide a Universe there's nothing stopping us from
>>  making an MCM or .cs.
>
> We could also build a complet .st file-in, but that doesn't need to
> happen in the first place. Or an image-segment for instant-loading.

If you write that, cool.

Cheers
Philippe