Herby,
my ccomments were not meant to say you are not competent enough to fix
Glorp. I know you have been active as the maintainer of Amber for quite
a while now and know you are an experienced Smalltalker. So this is not
an attempt to make you look incompetent or "unqualified".
I just wanted to point out that
* I think that if there is a bug in Glorp, it should be communicated
to the maintainers in order to make sure the fix is making it into
newer Glorp versions and from there to all dialects that have a port
of Glorp (Smalltalk is too much of a niche to be able to stand more
and more niche-ification of forks and stuff, esp. for such a central
part as Glorp which are way too important to only be maintained by
one or two developers - which they unfortunately are, at least to my
knowledge)
* I am not sure if anybody from Cincom is listening here looking for
Glorp problems, so I saw/see the danger of "private" fixes / forks
* I fixed a few bugs in Glorp in the past just to find out that the
concept was correct but the place to fix it was wrong (or at least
would not heal all related problems). Glorp is complex and it has
lots of layers. It is a good example of the "avoid responsibility"
concept that was once (what a coincidence) formulated by Alan Knight
in an article named "All I've learned about object orientation I
learnt from Dilbert" (or similar) - so I was gad Niall looked into
these and gave me feedback as well as a "full" fix
So I mainly ask you to post your fix and problem description to the
Glorp Mailing list / Google group. It would be a pity if your fix is
buried in some fork of Glorp.
Joachim
Am 16.08.17 um 20:02 schrieb Herby Vojčík:
Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
Herby,
Please apologize I can't take the time to look into your code.
Np, if someone eventually will.
I granted you write access to
<http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~DBXTalk/Glorp/>, could you upload your
latter version to it?
Uploaded.
Regards!
Esteban A. Maringolo
P.S.: I did not gain understanding of Glorp innards in that small
amount of time, of course, but I went by the intuition that at the
place I made the fix, the normal (base class, Mapping >>) behaviour is
to convert the right sides of the relation, and the only subclass
which has it overridden, namely DirectMapping, seems to do the same
thing (when looking at the code), just in an optimized way. Except, it
does not convert, which I believe, strongly, to be a bug left out
while doing that optimization.
Herby
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de
Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de
D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
