(was Re: iSqueak)

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at
Tue Jun 28 08:32:13 UTC 2005

> I understand and I agree that having separated tests is good and  avoid 
> dependencies. Now
> I do not understand the naming conventions. I miss something but I do  
> not know what.
> Why the tests of Kernel-Chronology are not simply
> KernelChronology-Tests?
> Because MC would put them under Kernel?
> but we could have a separate package for KernelChronologyTests?

Because creating fifty packages for each and every category ending with 
"-Test" wasn't TSTTCPW. The simplest thing was to reclassify the classes 
so we have a "Kernel" package and a "KernelTests" package, a 
"Collection" package and a "CollectionTests" package etc.

Again keep in mind that the goal of this exercise was to *fully* 
packagize the system - and because of this some compromises had to be 
made. If you want to make all of these separate packages, by all means, 
feel free to do so. But that was out of my scope.

   - Andreas

More information about the Packages mailing list