Hi,
I find it quite confusing that there is always different shortcut for do it:
* Playground: alt + shift + g
* Inspector: alt + g
* Roassal Easel: alt + s
Can this be unified?
Peter
Hi,
I summarize below why I think fine grained configurations should be
preferred to groups.
The group is not a first class configuration, although it can be depended
on. If you depend on a group of a configuration, it's harder to understand
the consequences and it's harder to build tools for it.
Consider the graph below representing the dependencies starting from
ConfigurationOfMoose #development:
[image: Inline image 2]
It's a simple representation of dependencies, and it makes the maze of
configurations easier to grasp. The interesting thing about it is that by
showing a configuration node only once, you can see how multiple other
projects depend on it. For example, HashTable is being depended on by two
distinct configurations.
You can also see that Magritte depends on Grease, but you do not see that
it only depends on the Core group. To do that, you have to look at the
details of the edge.
We used to have groups in GT, however, after a while we moved to more fine
grained configurations. As a consequence, you can see that GlamourCore
(which used to be a group in Glamour) is being depended on by three
different configurations. Using first class configurations makes tool
building (like representation, navigation or release) easier.
You could argue that we could represent a Group as node, however, even then
you would not be able to see dependencies between groups that reside within
the same configuration because groups are not first class configurations
that can explicitly define dependencies, they are just groups.
Groups might provide an apparent ease of use for quick things, but I
strongly believe that they are an unessential construct and that if we
would not use them, tools would become cheaper and more effective.
Cheers,
Doru
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2015 4:42 AM, "Tudor Girba" <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I would rather prefer to create a separate
> ConfigurationOfPillarTools that adds the Pillar-Pharo-Tools and the
> PetitParser dependency. What that be Ok?
>
> Ok for me, do as you prefer. What is your rationale?
>
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
Hi!
I am forwarding Pierce’s answer to the mailing list. I think it may interest some people.
I was able to open and query a SQL database (.db file). It works nicely.
Just to let you know.
Cheers,
Alexandre
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: March 7, 2015 at 3:09:37 AM EST
> From: Pierce Ng <pierce(a)samadhiweb.com>
> To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org>, Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Reading an SQL db on OS X
> Reply-To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org>
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> I would like to read a SQL .db file. The page
>> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/NBSQLite3 mention how to do this on
>> Windows and Linux, but not on OSX. What should I do to read a SQL file on OS
>> X? I tried google, but it did not work.
>
> Do it the same way on OSX as on Windows and Linux. On OSX you need to supply a
> full path name to the DB file. This is due to weirdness in Pharo.app; search
> this list's archives for a recent discussion.
>
> I wrote NBSQLite3 on OSX and tested on Linux. I don't use Windows. Subsequently
> Torsten moved NBSQLite3 to STH. Seems Torsten uses Linux and Windows, so now we
> have the 3 main platforms covered. :-)
>
> You may also want to check out http://www.samadhiweb.com/NBSQLite3.html.
>
> Pierce
>
>
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi!
There is the following method in Moose:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MooseModel>>numberOfPackages
<MSEProperty: #numberOfPackages type: #Number>
<MSEComment: 'Total number of packages'>
^ self isSmalltalk
ifTrue: [self privateState propertyAt: #numberOfPackages ifAbsentPut: [self allPackages size].]
ifFalse: [self privateState propertyAt: #numberOfPackages ifAbsentPut: [self allNamespaces size].].
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The fact this method is defined in MooseModel seems quite wrong to me. Why should this method be in that class? #numberOfClasses is defined somewhere else.
I now have a moose model that contains profiling data, and the notion of package is meaningless in my context.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi!
I found this very interesting!
https://github.com/iamwilhelm/prolly
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi!
I’ve just added an example about the layouts. I think this may be useful.
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
What if we scaled Morphs (e.g. image previews) to fit in the tool? Right now,
panes showing Morphs show them clipped with no scroll bars, which is less
useful for large images.
-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/GT-Inspector-Fit-Morphs-tp4810050.html
Sent from the Moose mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
In the old inspector, you used to be able to do this by accepting the right
pane. Is this possible with GT Inspector? Thanks.
p.s. I'm assuming since I didn't see a user list that this is the place for
user questions as well as dev stuff. Is that correct?
-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/GT-Inspector-Edit-Inst-Var-Value-tp4810059.html
Sent from the Moose mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi all,
I am trying to analyze my system by using moose and creating a BluePrint
Complexity Visualization. The problem is that the visualization is a morph
without zoom or drag and is difficult to understand something.
Is there any way to have a visualization like the one of "System
Complexity"? (In which is possible to drag, to zoom and to export)
Thanks
Hi!
Someone in the room today tried Moose. He browsed the moose website and downloaded the latest moose. He then opened it and started to click around. He closed it and moved to something else.
I think this is a quite representative behavior. After having downloaded Moose, the next step is not clear at all. Maybe having a welcome message and some tutorials available could help?
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
