2007/6/28, Bergel, Alexandre bergel@iam.unibe.ch:

Same thing. By the way, what is the difference between SqueakMap and Universe? Andrew rose a similar question few weeks ago... Why is there (or why do we need) two deployment tools? If SqueakMap is not used anymore, then it should be removed, but having both is confusing (at least for me).

Have a look at the thread from May 24 2007: "Universes/SqueakMap Separation? (was Re: Fun with Symbol)"

I think we need something better than Universe before switching to something else than SqueakMap. I currently use Universe for the squeak-dev image because it manages dependencies between packages.

SquekMap and Package Universe differ in at least two ways.

The one that people notice immediately is that PU knows the prerequisites for a package. Thus, when you load a package in PU, you load all the packages that it depends on. This makes it much easier to use than SM. SM ought to be changed to do the same, and if it doesn't change then in my opinion it is likely to be abandoned.

The second major difference is that there is one SqueakMap, and it tries to hold everything. There can be many databases for PU, on the other hand. One PU can include another. Each PU is supposed to have someone who oversees it and who makes sure that everything goes together. However, this last feature hasn't been used much. There was a PU for 3.9 and there is a different one for 3.10. But lots of different people stick stuff in the 3.10 "universe", and so it can take awhile before we discover that two packages don't work together.

It is useful to have a complete list of packages. It would be a shame to abandon that feature of SM. Most of the time, however, I only want packages that are known to work with my current version.

SM has some other features that PU doesn't, such as recording license info. PU can't uninstall a package, and I think SM allows this. It would be nice if PU added these features. But the strength of PU is that everything is supposed to work together, so PU is fundamentally at odds with the requirement to find every existing package.

Edgar said that the 3.10 release team is going to drop SM. That is not entirely true. We have been moving packages out of the image, and PU makes that easier. When we move a package out of the image, we move it into PU. So, the plan is to move SM from the image to PU. It will still be available.

The names of SM and PU seems wierd to me. Sicne SM tries to include everything, it should have been called "Squeak Universe". Since PU only contains packages that work toether, it shouldn't have been called "universe". Perhaps "galaxy", since there are many galaxies but only one universe.

-Ralph

On 6/29/07, Ralph Johnson johnson@cs.uiuc.edu wrote:

SquekMap and Package Universe differ in at least two ways. ... SM ought to be changed to do the same, and if it doesn't change then in my opinion it is likely to be abandoned.

That would really be a shame. As you stated, SM is a nice index to a vast wealth of Squeak code and projects over the years, many of which are not in a Universe today (and probably never will be). It would be a shame to loose visibility to those projects. SM also has a nice cache of some (most? all?) of those packages, so as the original storage places for those packages rot or dissappear, we can still benefit from them.

If everyone started saving all work in Monticello and saved it to SqueakSource - or some other authoritative place - AND there were motivated people to convert all the old (usually very interesting and sometimes useful) code from SM into Montecello, then there might be some justification to removing SM. I just don't see that happening.

-ChrisC

Same thing. Still broken.

Alexandre

On 28 Jun 2007, at 12:06, Mathieu Suen wrote:

May be try to recompile StScanner Mth

On Jun 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Bergel, Alexandre wrote:

...

Dear SmaCC friends,

I wish to adjust a smalltalk parser. However, I was not able to find a SmaCC description that actually works. Just try to install SmaCCDev-lr.17 in a squeak-dev image (that already contains SmaCC-lr.13). Open the SmaCC window, load StScanner and StParser. And try to test: 1 + 2. A message not understood: StScanner>>id is raised.

any idea ?

By the way, I was surprise to see that RBParser is not SmaCC-based...

Alexandre

-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.