On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > There already exists a GT-InspectorExtensions-XML which is already > published in the GT repository. > Cool. I'll revert my changes. However its not very discoverable that people need to check that repository for any particular application. I even took a few guesses to find the repository Smalltalkhub/Moose/GToolkit. Also, I understand from... http://pharo.gemtalksystems.com/book/LanguageAndLibraries/XML/XML-support-in-Pharo/ that there are different XML packages, so its not obvious from your package which system it applies to. Though from context here I guess it is XML-Parser, others coming later won't have that context. (I guess a separate GT-InspectorExtensions-* package is needed for each XML system.) Now when I add some GT extensions to my own package, should I put my GT-InspectorExtensions-MyApplication package in your repository? And can I have write access to maintain it ;) ? It would be good to manage these extensions consistently across the community. So what do you think of... * Updating ConfigurationOfXMLParser to automatically load the extensions for Pharo4. * Moving the package into the XML-Parser repository so it sits next to other compatibility packages like XML-Parser-GemstoneCompatability -- and possibly renaming it something like XML-Parser-GT-Extensions. > I would prefer to qualify the extensions by the tool they refer to: > GT-InspectorExtensions-*, GT-SpotterExtensions-* etc. > > gtDisplayOn: should be more in the inspector, but probably some were added > mostly in the spotter so they ended up in the less optimal package. > okay. good to understand. cheers -ben > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I happened to need to use and XML Parser for the first time and found >> inspecting the structure awkward, so I added some GTInspector extensions to >> XML-Parser. This is uploaded as XML-Parser-BenComan.304 to >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/XMLParser. Could someone who >> uses XML regularly check if these are reasonable? >> >> Now should these methods be packaged separately somehow, since they are >> likely not of interest to other Smalltalk flavours? >> >> btw I gave them a protocol of "GT-Extensions" - but I also considered >> "moldable-tools" and "tools-extensions". If there a preference? This will >> likely be a common occurrence across the community, so we should try for a >> consistent convention across the community for such extensions. >> >> btw2, I notice that #gtDisplayOn: implementors are fairly evenly split >> between [GT-InspectorExtensions-Core] and [GT-SpotterExtensions-Core]. Are >> they really separated like this in their use? >> >> cheers -ben >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >
