Hi,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr
wrote:
...
To me I think that it would be good to have a
Moosedev and a
MooseDeployment part because we have many differnt frameworks in the system
This is certainly an important topic and it warrants its own discussion.
I think we should not distinguish between MooseDev and MooseDeployment :).
I know but now Moose is a large kitchen sink.
It could be a sink, but it's actually not large. With everything included,
you get around 2200 classes (if you take Mondrian out, it's about 2000).
Pharo 2.0 has something like 10'000 classes.
I will discuss with the synectique guys because I think that when we deploy
a tool we do not need half of Moose and after we
cry for space.
I think you are mixing arguments. The Moose image is somewhere around 50 MB
right now, but that is without any cleaning. It's true that it would be
cool to have it smaller. Your space problems start when you run into 1GB or
so, so the initial space is not really the issue.
So we will see what we will do. Right now I do not want to manage my own
Moose but if the company needs it, then I will do it
because I'm not spending my week-ends and more just for the fun of it. I
have better things to do.
This does not sound constructive. It seems to me that all the issue was
generated by the loading problem. However, this has almost nothing to do
with Moose, but with the support that comes with the underlying
infrastructure. Every significant Pharo project is likely to have the same
loading problems, and I was thinking that we are working towards a solution
that will benefit everyone. And yes, we need better tool support but I
think that finally we start to see the road.
So, let's have a dialogue. You make explicit what you need and then we see
what the real issue is. But, I think you know that :).
With your vision Pharo would be the sum of all its projects and I want
exactly the inverse: a small core and
a modular infrastructure so that people can load what they need.
But, Moose is modular. We have build jobs for every important component to
ensure that each of them is loadable separately. All you have to do is pick
the components you want, and assemble your own image. It's just that we
release one image for simplicity of communication, not of deployment.
I am sure we can get more modular (for example, FAMIX and Finder could be
modularized), but we need the use cases to figure out what is the most
useful way to cut.
Now you know like me that this is not in opposition with the other scenario
;)
I think that learning how to deploy is the best way to get the best of
both scenario: (1) customed under control deployement (2) full Moose.
I really see no problem with deploying, but perhaps I do not understand
what you refer to.
My vision goes like this:
- Moose is a platform that works for multiple
technologies. Perhaps we can
distinguish between what makes sense for Java or for a language like C#,
but the differences would be small and would not warrant different
distributions.
- Moose is a platform for Pharo as well, although not many are seeing it
like that. This means that the tools we have with Moose should be used for
analyzing Pharo.
- We could distinguish between a Pharo only distribution and the
distribution for all other languages. Actually, this is what we have with
the GToolkit project: a Pharo specific toolset. However, we still want to
have the Pharo-specific tools inside a Java-specific distribution given
that we want people to develop their own tools fast. And to debug them. And
to inspect them.
We just want clients using our tools because this is even more difficult
to find the other clients.
If we encounter clients that can accept to understand that they can script
their own tools
this will be a different story but a modular infrastructure support both.
Let's get more concrete. What part of the current Moose Suite would you not
need in your image? Or better yet, what are parts that you need in your
image?
Cheers,
Doru
So we want all the Pharo specific tools in the large distribution, too.
All in all, we now go towards:
- GToolkit for everyone that wants to develop in Pharo only.
- Moose for every other language (and it includes GToolkit).
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"