[Seaside-dev] #decorationClasses preference

[Philippe Marschall]

2008/7/29 Julian Fitzell <jfitzell at gmail.com>:
> 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...

There is an issue for this since several months:
http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=28

<rant>
This is one of the cases where a continuous integration server would
come in real handy. So you immediately know when you messed up:
- the dependencies
- a test
- a port
</rant>

Cheers
Philippe