[Seaside-dev] #decorationClasses preference

[John O'Keefe]

> So I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to split the
> Seaside-Core package into 4:
>  Seaside-Core-Request
>  Seaside-Core-Session
>  Seaside-Core-Component
>  Seaside-Core-Rendering

> These were the 4 main layers as they were designed in 2.3. Maybe the
> overhead of managing the packages would make it not worth it but it
> would reinforce the distinctions, allow class extensions onto the
> lower layers where necessary, and make it easy to run tests on the
> lower layers without the higher ones loaded.
> Thoughts?

Like Paolo, I am in favor of smaller packages (as long as the dependencies
between packages are correct).  Out of scope references such the reference
to WAHalo in WAPresenter give me a lot of trouble in porting because my
target (VA Smalltalk) strictly enforces dependencies and I have to patch the
references up both when I do the port and when I package for deployment
(since there is no WAHalo in a deployed Seaside application).

John O'Keefe [|], Principal Smalltalk Architect, Instantiations Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/attachments/20080729/3a3e948c/attachment.htm