12 Aug
2013
12 Aug
'13
9:32 a.m.
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.
My remark is not that I was raging about loading. I worked to improve Moose and this was
fun (just long feedback loop - I will see if I can start to build a
configuration validator but I want to finish my open tasks). It just took me friday full
day and sunday full day.
I wonder why I got all the problems showing up in my face.
My remark is that if a business reason led me to think that we should not ship half of
moose then
- either the current config support it
- or it does not and we can modify
- or I will do it in my corner.
No more.
In particular yesterday I was happy to find the bug in the dependencies because else I was
thinking that I would have to use reloader because
I do not want to have to deal with Metacello internals.
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 :).
my concern is that Moose is large and more important: there is no real experience to
create working subsets nicely working together
so it means that when we will need it we will face problems (i'm not talking about
mondrian, glamour, GTtoolkit here) more Moose.
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.
I'm not thinking that we should over optimise. Just exercise modularity
And right now I see a lot of cherry picking to build a smaller Moose.
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.
For me the fact that I found in one try around more than 10 dependency problems made me
think that we do not exercise the modular aspects
of the infrastructure. Else we would have discovered them long time ago.
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"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev