On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:28 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi ben > > we could update the configurationOfXMLReader. > But the right solution is to define a new configuration loading GT-Tools, > XMLReader and your extensions. > In pharo 40 we could consider that GT-Tools is loaded. > Now I think that making the dependencies explicit is important. > > > 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. > > The package I maintain with monty is in PharoExtras so I would prefer not > to change its location. >
I meant moving GT-InspectorExtensions-XML..mcz from Smalltalkhub Moose/GToolkit to Smalltalkhub PharoExtras/XMLParser renamed XML-Parser-GTExtensions..mcz , but that might not suit the GT Team. Actually in off-list correspondence with monty I learnt of XMLPluggableElementFactory, which seems to suit my need better than my proposed GT extensions for XMLParser. cheers -ben > > Stef > > > > >> 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" >> > > >
