3.9alpha update stream (was Re: source.squeakfoundation.org)
dway at mailcan.com
Thu Jun 30 16:32:03 UTC 2005
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:06:51 +0200, "Avi Bryant" <avi.bryant at gmail.com>
> On 6/30/05, Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > Under the assumption that the placing of code under packages is done
> > simply by creating an MC package for every otherwise-uncategorized
> > method, and therefore is no work at all (I think that's what Andreas
> > says that doIt does, if not, that's not hard to write):
> > I think its better to have everything in packages, so people don't meet
> > technical problems such as "I changed a bunch of methods, uploaded the
> > packages that changed in MC, but one of my methods didn't appear".
> > The down side is we might have a couple of dumb packages, but we'll be
> > moving code between packages forever anyway (detangling), so who cares?
> Ok. So is it better to have a single dumb package ("Orphaned") or
> lots of little dumb packages? I lean towards the former.
See my previous email... it's looking like we may not have any orphaned
methods at all, so hopefully we won't need this.
(If we have to have this for some reason, I also lean toward having a
single big dumb package rather than a bunch of little ones.)
Now, there is still *plenty* of detangling & package boundary work to be
done, but at least it looks like all the code will be in real packages.
:) (E.g. Moving String>>asUrl from the Collections package to the
More information about the Packages