Hi Andreas,
This is only a speculation. If I remember correctly, there was the idea that Monticello could be used not only to version and merge code but other objects as well, e.g. instances of a business object model. As far as I know, no one took that route. However, maybe this was the reason why the definition model was not modelled more closely after the code model.
As for the potential impact of such a change: Sorry, I cannot help you there.
Cheers, - Bernhard
Am 16.04.2009 um 06:59 schrieb Andreas Raab:
Hi -
I'm trying to make some modifications to Monticello and ran into an interesting issue: It appears that MC treats all definitions as a flat list and not structured in any way. E.g., MCMethodDefinitions are not contained inside the MCClassDefinitions that they apply to. Why is this?
It seems to me that a bit more structure in MC could greatly help for a variety of issues: From being able to provide a class definition with extension methods (and consequently being able to load packages into images that don't even have the classes originally being extended) over various simplifications and speed improvements in dependency management (e.g., the dependency sorter doesn't need to sort definitions that are contained inside other definitions since the dependency is implicit).
However, it feels like this may have been a conscious decision and I am wondering what the advantage is to treat all definitions as a flat list instead of using the existing dependencies like class/ method hierarchies. I am very seriously considering to change this and would like to know more about the potential impact of such a change.
Thanks for any info,
- Andreas