[squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-dev] Package comments

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Wed May 6 17:52:41 UTC 2015


2015-05-06 13:08 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker at inria.fr>:

>
> > On 06 May 2015, at 10:53, Christophe Demarey <
> Christophe.Demarey at inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 5 mai 2015 à 17:14, Kasper Osterbye a écrit :
> >
> >> Marcus Denker-4 wrote
> >>> Right now we do not have yet Package comments.
> >>>
> >>> But we should!
> >>>
> >>> MBInfo seems to be a private class of Versionner…
> >>>
> >>> For package comments we first need to evaluate the design space…
> >>> e.g. where to store it in the image, how to store it in Monticello…
> >>
> >> OK - Makes sense.
> >>
> >> From my perspective, the key to getting this of the ground is to make
> sure
> >> such comments can be written and read in Nautilus. The package objects
> used
> >> in Nautilus are from "RPackage".
> >> Thus, the problem, in my view reduces to:
> >> a) How to make room in RPackage for a comment field (add one more IV)
> >> b) How to integrate the storage of this field in connection with
> Monticello
> >> as Marcus writes.
> >
> > I don't think is the good way to do that.
> > We are working on adding meta-data to packages. These meta-data includes
> a package description (or comment) but also a lot of other data.
> > You will not be able to store everything in rpackage inst. var. And of
> course, there is also the problem that Monticello is not able to store
> meta-data (e.g. STON files).
> > For now, the best option is to use a PackageManifest.
> >
> > If you want to allow package comments in Nautilus, I would display the
> content of the description method of the package manifest if available.
> >
>
> Yes… this could be the easiest for now.
>
> Then as a second step, we add support to store resources in Monticello.
>
>         Marcus
>
>
>
Adding metadata to MC  cannot be very difficult, MC already carries plenty
of metadata ;)
Coordination with other dialects (squeak/gemstone/...) would be welcome,
because i'm sure that every dialect would benefit from package comments, or
already has package comments (vw along with many other properties).
No long discussion required, if no consensus, just let Pharo lead.
I remember that Bert has experimented adding a comment to PackageInfo, but
I don't know in which state it did end up (MC-wise).

Nicolas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150506/123ac1a1/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list