On 04/10/2007, Göran Krampe goran@krampe.se wrote:
Hi!
An example, let's say Magritte uses Component and so does Seaside. Sure, they are used a lot together in many images and perhaps my proposal would eventually make one of them to rename Component to something more specific. But if a specialised Open GL library used a class Component it would most likely not be loaded at the same time in that many images so it would NOT cause the users to cheer for a rename. See my point?
But then, someone who worked with Component moved to another image and found that Component here is not a Component there and he needs to keep in mind every time that there are different Components in different images. And then everytime he will see reference to Component, he will keep losing time, checking is that Package deals with Seaside component, or with OpenGL component, or maybe with Foo Component? And, in contrast, having full notation like Seaside::Component (or any other proposed form), he'll never be confused while studiyng/checking code in any image.
Personally, i tend to have one huge big image for my dev purposes. I like to have all in single place, rather than running couple squeaks and maintain number of images and keep remember where they live, what packages they use e.t.c. This is much more convenient - suppose i want to update something, so i need to update only single image once, but having many images i forced to do that many times..