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.

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 <b...@openinworld.com
    <mailto:b...@openinworld.com>> 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
        <http://smalltalkhub.com/#%21/%7EPharoExtras/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 <http://www.tudorgirba.com>

    "Every thing has its own flow"



Reply via email to