On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote: > First that anything, thanks to Mariano for all the effort put in order > to release a 1.0 version of Pharo. And to all the contributors also.
+ 200 :) > > As part of incorporating Metacello to my projects, I have gain a little > more insight in the working of it. For that I have been studying the > existing configurations. I even contributed a pair to the repository. > Tonight I was building a Pharo image using the ConfigurationOfPharo. > > The announce said nothing but the inner workings of the dev image > creations changed, although the result is exactly (with a lot of fixes > included) the same that the rc1 image created with Metacello. The > changes are this: > > - in rc1, it was only necessary ConfigurationOfPharo to build a complete > Pharo dev image. That is ConfigurationOfPharo included > ImageForDevelopers. > > - in rc2, ConfigurationOfPharo isn't enough to build a dev image (I > noticed this tonight because I used ConfigurationOfPharo alone to build > an image but in the end I didn't get autocompetition), it is also > necessary to run a second script to load ImageForDevelopers and install > it. This is all done in the installScript.st script included in the > pharo rc2 dev image. > > As I said before, the results are the same, but before all was done in > the ConfigurationOfPharo and now requires two steps. > > Now to the point. I understand that the separation of concerns is good, > because ImageForDevelopers is already a separated and tested package > that shouldn't be inside ConfigurationOfPharo. > > - Shouldn't be necessary to create a ConfigurationOfImageForDevelopers > and in this configuration reference ConfigurationOfPharo and then the > installScript for the dev image use *only* > ConfigurationOfImageForDevelopers? > > - It appears that Dale will announce project preload/postload doIts next > monday. If that happens, shouldn't be better to incorporate the code > from DEVImageCreator as preload/postload do its to the > ConfigurationOfPharo? probably even if I do not have enough experience with metacello > > It appears to me that DEVImageCreator is a mixture of different things, > both preference tuning (setDefaultPreferences, setFonts) image fixing > (addPreferenceCategories, cleanOpenMenu) and image building stuff > (writeListOfPackages, showWelcomeWorkspaces). > > Maybe the image fixing stuff should be a change incorporated to the > PharoCore image, and the preference tuning should be a postload do it > for the ConfigurationOfImageForDevelopers, and the image building stuff > should be in the install script. > > This way, if someone wants to build a image for developers (but without > the list of packages, or welcome workspaces) it only has to use > ConfigurationOfImageForDevelopers. probably > > Also, maybe after all this refactoring, the > ConfigurationOfImageForDevelopers isn't necessary because all can be > incorporated to the ConfigurationOfPharo as preload/postload do its. > That is fine. > > Also, the image for developers has stuff for squeak. This refactoring > would permit to separate them in preload/postload for each platform, in > a cleaner way. > > As I said at beginning, this is only thoughts, and the current result > image is the same as the one produced by the previous configuration, but > maybe, with more time and less pressure, this refactoring and cleaning > could be made. > > Of course, I will try to do this and contribute the code as my time > permits, but if someone can do it sooner, the better for all of us. > > Thanks again for the hard work > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
