2014-04-08 19:31 GMT-03:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: > > On 09 Apr 2014, at 00:16, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From my standpoint GLORP is abandoned in the Pharo realm. >> There are some people, like me, that still use it, but no one maintains it. >> It worries me that not a single person ran into this issue before, >> during the whole testing of Pharo 3. Well... I am now, but I'd expect >> more people using GLORP. > > No, it is not abandoned. See > http://dbxtalk.smallworks.com.ar > http://forum.world.st/dbxtalk-working-on-pharo-3-0-td4743313.html
DBXTalk is the driver layer, which is not GLORP per se (I know you know this). In the mentioned thread Tudor talks about loading DBXTalk [1], not GlorpDBX. Otherwise he would had run into the Cache name collision. GLORP port is outdated by two years, Alan Knight confirmed it, and Mariano told me porting it from VW is not as straightforward as you would expect (name clashing aside), and the reason for GlorpDBX (which only exists in Pharo/Squeak AFAIK) is to decouple VW's GLORP from PostgreSQL (which is tightly bound). > But your remarks about porting and namespaces is correct. > Maintaining something across multiple Smalltalk implementations is very hard. If not impossible ;-) Thanks for your support. Esteban A. Maringolo [1] I tested the load of DBXTalk in a vanilla 3.0 image using: Gofer new smalltalkhubUser: 'DBXTalk' project: 'DBXTalkDriver'; package: 'ConfigurationOfOpenDBXDriver'; load. #ConfigurationOfOpenDBXDriver asClass loadBleedingEdge. And got he following error: 'No version found for ''1.3.1'' of ConfigurationOfTalkFFI because: Version ''1.3.1'' is not defined in ConfigurationOfTalkFFI. Possible versions include: #(#bleedingEdge #development ''1.0-baseline'' ''1.0'' ''1.1-baseline'' ''1.1'' ''1.2-baseline'' ''1.2'' ''1.3-baseline'' ''1.3'' ''1.4'' ''1.5'')'
