[Seaside-dev] #decorationClasses preference

[Julian Fitzell]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John O'Keefe
<wembley.instantiations at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

Eek! Yes, there's no point having the packages if the dependencies
aren't correct.

Wonder what the solution in this case is...

Julian