On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
> Indeed, we would like to encourage the packaging of GT extensions in the > same project as the code they extend. So, in this case, > GT-InspectorExtensions-XML would be better suited to be in the > PharoExtras/XMLParser > repository under XML-Parser-GT-InspectorExtensions. > > Actually, given that most of these extensions are not more complicated > than a printOn:, I would even argue that in many cases it would be more > suitable to have them in the same package as the class they extend. I know > it sounds like bad dependency management, but the GT-Inspector is here to > stay (and the API will likely remain compatible in the future), so the risk > is minimal and I think in many situations you will this approach more > pragmatic. > This had crossed my mind. The upside is that #gtDisplay its unlikely to clash with another platform maybe that its easier to load a single package, but the Configuration should handle this anyhow. The downside is that unneccessary methods pollute other platforms. In this case being under PharoExtras maybe thats not so much a worry, but was XMLParser pulled from somewhere that we should be synchronising with? > > So, Ben: could you push the package as you described (only call it please > XML-Parser-GT-InspectorExtensions)? > Thanks for the go ahead. Will do. Now considering further that that GT-Inspector is here to stay :) perhaps we should go more generic and call the package XML-Parser-PharoCompatibility ? cheers -ben > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:28 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> 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 >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ben Coman <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. 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? >>>>> >>>>
