Michael Rueger wrote:
> Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 
>>> There is actually on more method (attached) that we need to add to
>>> either Kom or Seaside to make Pharo and Squeak compatible on the API level.
>> Sorry but no, see previous posts. Have a look at Seaside2.8a1-pmm.583
>> for what I would find acceptable.
> 
> OK, can you explain how I should make Seaside work on both Pharo and 
> Squeak? I spent two days figuring out a minimal set of changes that 
> would not require doing some ugly hack testing for which underlying 
> platform you are dealing with and you say that is not acceptable? You 
> *want* ugly hacks? I don't understand...

- Monkey patching either Seaside or Kom is not acceptable. We have this
issue partially because Kom is monkey patching Squeak.
- Forking Seaside for Pharo is not acceptable.
- Relying on a forked Kom is not acceptable, we need to have a
consistent interface for Kom in both Squeak an Pharo.

That kinda limits our options.

Second the fix is not that ugly. It just sends #asString to something it
expects to be a String. This is not a that uncommon idiom. And we
already have to do something way uglier for ensuring author initials.

That's what happens if you break the API. You brake a lot of code and
cause a lot of pain for a lot of people.

Cheers
Philippe


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to