Moose-dev December 2009

moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch

29 participants
67 discussions

Glamour default examples hanging Pharo
by Johan Fabry 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

Hi, all, something that is a major inconvenience: with todays default configuration of moose, a bunch of glamour basic examples hang Pharo. I submitted a bugreport: http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=258 that uses one case but there are many more. Select something in a list and the image hangs. A bit of a shame, I wanted to play around with Glamour to implement the control panel for AspectMaps, but now I cannot do anything at all :-( -- Johan Fabry jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

3 7

Mondrian-Alexandre_Bergel.302
by Alexandre Bergel 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

The comment of this version says: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This version contains a number of important refactorings and improvement: - MOGraphElement.children has been renamed into MOGraphElement.nodes - allChildrenDo: -> allNodesDo: - added a method MOGraphElement>>handleException: that handle error. Normally, an image should not freeze when rendering an erroneous Mondrian script. - Bug fixed in MOGraphElement>>elementAt:ifAbsent: This solve the ISSUE #193. A test has been added: MOViewRendererTest>>testEdgeContainsPointWithEdges - recagorization of methods in MOArrowedOrthoVerticalLineShape - Bug fixed in MOLineShape>>containsPoint:for: This solved the ISSUE #249. The problem stems from using CurvedLine. I added a test MOViewRendererTest>>testEdgeContainsPointCurveFitter for this - Added a safeguard in MOAnnouncer>>popupText: All 164 Test methods are green! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Doru, I wanted to do a merge with tg.296, but you redefined MOSplineShape>>display:on: and I provide a new version of this method (I refactored some part). Maybe you want to do the merging of this method. I can do it if you want. I am now updating the corresponding issues in code.google.com Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

5 8

[infusion] Importing calls from static context
by Simon Denier 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Hi there the infusion team I would like to know if/how inFusion handles calls in static block in Java. I can not find such invocations in a model. Would it be complicated to add them? I have the following sample: class KeyMapping { static final KeyMapping keyMapping1 = new KeyMapping(KeyEvent.VK_LEFT, KeyEvent.VK_RIGHT, KeyEvent.VK_UP, KeyEvent.VK_SPACE); static final KeyMapping keyMapping2 = new KeyMapping(KeyEvent.VK_X, KeyEvent.VK_V, KeyEvent.VK_D, KeyEvent.VK_ALT); int left, right, thrust, fire; KeyMapping(int k_left, int k_right, int k_thrust, int k_fire) { left = k_left; right = k_right; thrust = k_thrust; fire = k_fire; } } -- Simon

2 1

Review long-term goals / milestones etc
by Simon Denier 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

So now that we have discussed a bit more how to use the bug tracker, what about these two other pages. http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/improveMooseTaksList http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/PhamooseRoadmap They should at least be merged together, cleaned from some items, and some items could be pushed in the issue tracker perhaps. I will create a page describing the HowToIssue. -- Simon

4 6

Re: [Metacello] Re: Branch blessing and lastVersion
by Dale Henrichs 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

Stef, I tend to agree, but you want it fairly obvious to the end user that they are wandering onto the bleeding edge when using nano versions:) For example, by default, Metacello would filter out nano versions... Dale ----- "stephane ducasse" <stephane.ducasse(a)gmail.com> wrote: | simon my gut feeling is telling me that four level is too complex. | | Stef | | On Dec 5, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Simon Denier wrote: | | > | > | > Thinking again about the dev process specifically in Moose (not | subprojects such as CAnalyzer, Mondrian...), branches for developer | should be 'nano' releases actually, that is: | > - 4 is a major release of Moose | > - 4.1 is a minor release, but still something consistent | > - 4.2.x should be for release in the main trunk, i.e. mostly dev and | beta version before releasing a minor release (would be 4.2) | > - 4.2.x.y is a branch of one developer (something short-lived, | typically for a task resolution, once finished should be merged in | main trunk) | > | > We could also follow the linux rule: | > - 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 are the dev versions for the future 4.2 stable | releases | > - 4.2, 4.2.1 etc are minor and micro releases but stable, with bug | fixes | > i.e. minor is odd -> dev version, minor is even -> stable version | > This does not mean we work on two versions in parallel (we dont have | the manpower), but it just to help distinguish between dev and stable | versions | > | > I'm just pushing ideas out of my head. Now, with this process, we | have three main requirements for Moose: | > - making it easy for anybody to retrieve (and identify it) the | latest stable version | > - making integration in the main dev trunk the priority (we have | limited resources, so each developer should take care to merge its | changes in the main trunk, and start over from the main trunk for a | new task, NOT always working in the same branches) | > - managing micro/nano releases from each developer | > | > I'm sorry if this feels too complicated and overly complex, it is | not. I'm just playing with different schemas and see what could work | best. | > | > | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | > Now of course Metacello should not care about conventions (minor, | micro...) of each project. Your proposition seems reasonable and | flexible enough. | > | > But then, how can I ask for a version with a specific blessing? | > | > | > | > On 4 déc. 2009, at 18:48, Dale Henrichs wrote: | > | >> | >> Thinking off the top of my head, would it be work to supply a | pattern of some sort as an arg? Something like: | >> | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.*' | >> | >> Not a real regex (because of the periods would need to be escaped, | but mainly because reading regex for me is like trying to read | russian:). | >> | >> Maybe best is a special purpose character like '#' in addition to | the standard(?) smalltalk patterns '*' and '?': | >> | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '#.#' ---> matches all | major.minor | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#' ---> matches all | 1.minor | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*' ---> is current | algorithm | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.0' ---> matches | versions with trailing .0 | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '?.#' ---> matches single | character major.minor | > | > I dont see what is the use of this one? | > | > | > | >> ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#.3' ---> is invalid | >> | >> This one seems to the right approach ... I can add a #match: method | to MetacelloVersionNumber to implement the pattern matching. | >> | >> What do you think? | >> | >> Dale | >> | >> ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: | >> | >> | Suppose I have versions like this: | >> | 1.3.2 #development --> branch by a developer | >> | 1.3.1 #development --> branch by a developer | >> | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | >> | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | >> | | >> | When I perform a ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, I would | like | >> | | >> | to retrieve the config for the last dev version common to | everybody, | >> | | >> | and I would like this to be 1.3, not 1.3.2 which is the work of | one | >> | guy not yet merged in the main trunk. | >> | | >> | Right now, I get 1.3.2 | >> | | >> | Perhaps we could have something like this: | >> | 1.3.2 #branch --> branch by a developer | >> | 1.3.1 #branch --> branch by a developer | >> | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | >> | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | >> | | >> | and branch would be an 'unstable' tag ignored by the loader when | >> | asking for latestVersion or lastVersion (and veryLastVersion | could | >> | retrieve the latest version, be it a branch, dev, or stable). | >> | | >> | I have no special requirements here, I'm just playing with the | idea | >> | and process of how to manage micro releases with Metacello. | >> | | >> | -- | >> | Simon | > | > -- | > Simon | > | > | >

1 0

Re: [Metacello] Re: Branch blessing and lastVersion
by Dale Henrichs 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

Simon, I've been thinking about the same problems for GLASS ... I want it to be possible for individual developers to release bugfixes/improvements for sharing, but hadn't thought too far into it ... nano releases sounds like the right way to go...as far as a convention ... Re: filtering on version and blessing ... I think that the special '#' character in patterns should stay ... blessings don't have a sort order so at the moment they are odd beasts ... for example I can't say 'belssing > #alpha' ... so perhaps we need to define a sort order for blessings ... I lean away from a canonical list of blessings, so folks would need to be able to add blessings/priority to a project ... Have to come up with the low-level filtering api and then create come higher level helper methods ... I'm open to suggestions at the moment... Dale ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: | Thinking again about the dev process specifically in Moose (not | subprojects such as CAnalyzer, Mondrian...), branches for developer | should be 'nano' releases actually, that is: | - 4 is a major release of Moose | - 4.1 is a minor release, but still something consistent | - 4.2.x should be for release in the main trunk, i.e. mostly dev and | | beta version before releasing a minor release (would be 4.2) | - 4.2.x.y is a branch of one developer (something short-lived, | typically for a task resolution, once finished should be merged in | main trunk) | | We could also follow the linux rule: | - 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 are the dev versions for the future 4.2 stable | | releases | - 4.2, 4.2.1 etc are minor and micro releases but stable, with bug | fixes | i.e. minor is odd -> dev version, minor is even -> stable version | This does not mean we work on two versions in parallel (we dont have | | the manpower), but it just to help distinguish between dev and stable | | versions | | I'm just pushing ideas out of my head. Now, with this process, we have | | three main requirements for Moose: | - making it easy for anybody to retrieve (and identify it) the latest | | stable version | - making integration in the main dev trunk the priority (we have | limited resources, so each developer should take care to merge its | changes in the main trunk, and start over from the main trunk for a | new task, NOT always working in the same branches) | - managing micro/nano releases from each developer | | I'm sorry if this feels too complicated and overly complex, it is not. | | I'm just playing with different schemas and see what could work best. | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Now of course Metacello should not care about conventions (minor, | micro...) of each project. Your proposition seems reasonable and | flexible enough. | | But then, how can I ask for a version with a specific blessing? | | | | On 4 déc. 2009, at 18:48, Dale Henrichs wrote: | | > | > Thinking off the top of my head, would it be work to supply a | > pattern of some sort as an arg? Something like: | > | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.*' | > | > Not a real regex (because of the periods would need to be escaped, | | > but mainly because reading regex for me is like trying to read | > russian:). | > | > Maybe best is a special purpose character like '#' in addition to | > the standard(?) smalltalk patterns '*' and '?': | > | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '#.#' ---> matches all | > major.minor | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#' ---> matches all | > 1.minor | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*' ---> is current | > algorithm | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.0' ---> matches | > versions with trailing .0 | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '?.#' ---> matches single | | > character major.minor | | I dont see what is the use of this one? | | | | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#.3' ---> is invalid | > | > This one seems to the right approach ... I can add a #match: method | | > to MetacelloVersionNumber to implement the pattern matching. | > | > What do you think? | > | > Dale | > | > ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: | > | > | Suppose I have versions like this: | > | 1.3.2 #development --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3.1 #development --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | > | | > | When I perform a ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, I would | | > like | > | | > | to retrieve the config for the last dev version common to | everybody, | > | | > | and I would like this to be 1.3, not 1.3.2 which is the work of | one | > | guy not yet merged in the main trunk. | > | | > | Right now, I get 1.3.2 | > | | > | Perhaps we could have something like this: | > | 1.3.2 #branch --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3.1 #branch --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | > | | > | and branch would be an 'unstable' tag ignored by the loader when | > | asking for latestVersion or lastVersion (and veryLastVersion | could | > | retrieve the latest version, be it a branch, dev, or stable). | > | | > | I have no special requirements here, I'm just playing with the | idea | > | and process of how to manage micro releases with Metacello. | > | | > | -- | > | Simon | | -- | Simon

1 0

Re: [Metacello] Re: Branch blessing and lastVersion
by Simon Denier 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

Thinking again about the dev process specifically in Moose (not subprojects such as CAnalyzer, Mondrian...), branches for developer should be 'nano' releases actually, that is: - 4 is a major release of Moose - 4.1 is a minor release, but still something consistent - 4.2.x should be for release in the main trunk, i.e. mostly dev and beta version before releasing a minor release (would be 4.2) - 4.2.x.y is a branch of one developer (something short-lived, typically for a task resolution, once finished should be merged in main trunk) We could also follow the linux rule: - 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 are the dev versions for the future 4.2 stable releases - 4.2, 4.2.1 etc are minor and micro releases but stable, with bug fixes i.e. minor is odd -> dev version, minor is even -> stable version This does not mean we work on two versions in parallel (we dont have the manpower), but it just to help distinguish between dev and stable versions I'm just pushing ideas out of my head. Now, with this process, we have three main requirements for Moose: - making it easy for anybody to retrieve (and identify it) the latest stable version - making integration in the main dev trunk the priority (we have limited resources, so each developer should take care to merge its changes in the main trunk, and start over from the main trunk for a new task, NOT always working in the same branches) - managing micro/nano releases from each developer I'm sorry if this feels too complicated and overly complex, it is not. I'm just playing with different schemas and see what could work best. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now of course Metacello should not care about conventions (minor, micro...) of each project. Your proposition seems reasonable and flexible enough. But then, how can I ask for a version with a specific blessing? On 4 déc. 2009, at 18:48, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > Thinking off the top of my head, would it be work to supply a > pattern of some sort as an arg? Something like: > > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.*' > > Not a real regex (because of the periods would need to be escaped, > but mainly because reading regex for me is like trying to read > russian:). > > Maybe best is a special purpose character like '#' in addition to > the standard(?) smalltalk patterns '*' and '?': > > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '#.#' ---> matches all > major.minor > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#' ---> matches all > 1.minor > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*' ---> is current > algorithm > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.0' ---> matches > versions with trailing .0 > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '?.#' ---> matches single > character major.minor I dont see what is the use of this one? > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#.3' ---> is invalid > > This one seems to the right approach ... I can add a #match: method > to MetacelloVersionNumber to implement the pattern matching. > > What do you think? > > Dale > > ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > | Suppose I have versions like this: > | 1.3.2 #development --> branch by a developer > | 1.3.1 #development --> branch by a developer > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable > | > | When I perform a ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, I would > like > | > | to retrieve the config for the last dev version common to everybody, > | > | and I would like this to be 1.3, not 1.3.2 which is the work of one > | guy not yet merged in the main trunk. > | > | Right now, I get 1.3.2 > | > | Perhaps we could have something like this: > | 1.3.2 #branch --> branch by a developer > | 1.3.1 #branch --> branch by a developer > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable > | > | and branch would be an 'unstable' tag ignored by the loader when > | asking for latestVersion or lastVersion (and veryLastVersion could > | retrieve the latest version, be it a branch, dev, or stable). > | > | I have no special requirements here, I'm just playing with the idea > | and process of how to manage micro releases with Metacello. > | > | -- > | Simon -- Simon

2 1

for mondrian designers
by stephane ducasse 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

vedea: new microsoft scripting graphices.... http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4691 and http://processing.org/ The future of mondrian may be in Cairo support or Juan works. So consider to have a look at the cairo package in PharoTaskForces because it will not come to you alone :) Stef

5 12

Re: mse file export doesn't work
by Tudor Girba 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Thanks Fabrizio, Please provide the following info: - inFusion version - case study (how to get the code) so that I can reproduce the problem. Cheers, Doru On 4 Dec 2009, at 12:43, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > Hi Tudor, > i have problem to export the mse file from inFusion. It doesn't work > form the command line. Trying in the GUI I get this message: > > FAMIX 3.0 MSE Exporter could not be run ! > java.lang.NullPointerException > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .util.FAMIX30MSEExporter.visitMethod(FAMIX30MSEExporter.java:171) > at com.intooitus.memoria.core.Method.accept(Method.java:222) > at > com > .intooitus.infusion.util.MSEExporter.exportToStream(MSEExporter.java: > 70) > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .plugins.tools.memoria.MSEExporterTool.run(MSEExporterTool.java:40) > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .gui.ui.EntityMouseAction.actionPerformed(EntityMouseAction.java:198) > at > javax.swing.AbstractButton.fireActionPerformed(AbstractButton.java: > 2028) > at javax.swing.AbstractButton > $Handler.actionPerformed(AbstractButton.java:2351) > at > javax > .swing > .DefaultButtonModel.fireActionPerformed(DefaultButtonModel.java:387) > at > javax.swing.DefaultButtonModel.setPressed(DefaultButtonModel.java:242) > at javax.swing.AbstractButton.doClick(AbstractButton.java:389) > at > com.birosoft.liquid.LiquidMenuItemUI.doClick(LiquidMenuItemUI.java: > 492) > at com.birosoft.liquid.LiquidMenuItemUI > $MouseInputHandler.mouseReleased(LiquidMenuItemUI.java:1161) > at java.awt.Component.processMouseEvent(Component.java:6348) > at javax.swing.JComponent.processMouseEvent(JComponent.java:3267) > at java.awt.Component.processEvent(Component.java:6113) > at java.awt.Container.processEvent(Container.java:2085) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEventImpl(Component.java:4714) > at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:2143) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:4544) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.retargetMouseEvent(Container.java: > 4618) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.processMouseEvent(Container.java: > 4282) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.dispatchEvent(Container.java:4212) > at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:2129) > at java.awt.Window.dispatchEventImpl(Window.java:2475) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:4544) > at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:635) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(EventDispatchThread.java: > 296) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(EventDispatchThread.java:211) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java: > 201) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java: > 196) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java: > 188) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:122) > > Hope that can help you. > > Cheers, > > Fabrizio > -- www.tudorgirba.com "We are all great at making mistakes."

4 8

building a MooseModel is very long
by Cyrille Delaunay 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

For example you can run the method MooseModel class >> mseExportationTest I remember that some times ago ( some weeks) it was not as long as that. Is it normal ? Am I doing something wrong ?

3 12

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Moose-dev December 2009