[squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap soon working in 4.0/4.1!
goran at krampe.se
Thu Apr 8 10:57:20 UTC 2010
First I would like to say that I am not sure how to respond to this
post, given your tone! I will try to just make my remarks as "factual"
Chris Cunnington wrote:
> Why on earth are you fixing SqueakMap? How is this at all a good or
> useful thing?
> If I understand correctly, you want to make the Squeak Map Package
> Loader work.
> Is there some kind of if-it's-broken-I-must-fix-it pathology going on here?
If the SqueakMap Package Loader is still in the 4.0/4.1 image - then
surely having it *work* is better than having it *not work*, right?
Deciding if the SqueakMap Package Loader should be *removed* from the
image is another thing - and that is not up to me. I just want to help
maintain it, since I wrote it.
> If I were the king of Squeak I'd take hunt down both the Squeak Map
> Package Loader and the Universes Browser, get down with my bad Canadian
> self, and beat them to death like baby seals.
> Three ways to find code for Squeak.
No, not really. Universes and SqueakMap are indeed direct "competitors"
and I did argue hard for merging them when Lex wrote Universes - but he
was not interested in that. Now Lex is not AFAIK active anymore so
perhaps that path could easily be taken by the rest of us.
When Squeaksource was born I also noted that it overlaps with SqueakMap.
BUT it is NOT the same thing. Squeaksource is ONE (of many actually)
repository hubs that actually hosts code - and in only one format, MC.
SqueakMap is a catalog - and not a hub. It is also a singularity, there
is only one SqueakMap.
> Only one is updated with regularity
I can't really comment on how regular/irregular these three "portals"
are used, updated. I don't have numbers. But since most projects use MC
these days, and most developers do the least possible amount of work -
then they end up using Squeaksource and don't bother with
adding/maintaining an entry at SqueakMap.
This can however be automated/fixed if we would like to - and I think we
> and you're fixing a tool to feed the problem.
No, I am not fixing it in order to feed a problem. I have no malicious
> Is there something I don't get here or is that what you're doing: making
> the location of code more of a problem for beginners coming to Squeak?
SqueakMap is a catalog, not a repository. And let's see - either it is
something you do not understand *or* I am actively with malicious intent
trying to make it harder for beginners.... hmmm, which one can it be...
> Ensuring they find a seemingly working solution only to find that nobody
> updates the RFB on SqueakMap.
> There should only be one way to get code for Squeak. One.
No. There should be multiple sources and multiple formats for code. If
we could have *one* catalog for finding stuff, then sure, that was the
original intent of SqueakMap you know - but I have since a long time
given up on trying to create monopolies.
Currently, if you want to host a Changeset or a SAR-file or a .st file
you can not do that on SS. You can do it using SqueakMap, and yes,
SqueakMap also offers hosting capability, but it does NOT try to be
Squeaksource. In fact, it doesn't even have a suitable MC repo protocol
for storing directly into it, because it was always meant to be a
catalog that played well with others.
Interestingly, when SS came to the scene and I warned people about
*some* of the consequences from the fact that we now had two partially
overlapping tools - then people did not consider it a problem. ;)
> All other should be chased across the ice and turned into coats.
An interesting perspective - especially in an open source community.
More information about the Squeak-dev