Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Wow.  Many thanks - it works great.  Filed in clean, everything seems to
> perform as advertised.
Good to hear. Let me know if you come across anything later.

> Incidentally, the first thing I did was made RefactoringBrowser a subclass
> of PackagePaneBrowser instead of Browser, with no ill effects.

Hmm, interesting idea. I don't much like the PackagePaneBrowser - too
many lists. Of course, it does have some advantages if you're using the
ModuleFiler - you can see the coarse grained packages easily...

> > Using Avi Bryant's ModuleFiler, I am able to file out the related system
> > categories and all their  class extensions to the base image with one
> > operation, creating one file. The normal system categories and method
> > categories keep my layering information intact and more consistent than
> > I could with changesets.
> 
> Yes - I've completely ignored the whole changeset system for quite a while
> now, and it's been a great improvement. 
Yup. I'm thinking now on how to make it even better by having more tool
support - making class extensions more visible, and integrating the
ModuleFiler into the browser.

One thing that saved me a lot of time was that I used the information of
the change sets to recategorize the methods automatically. That way
there are no mistakes, nothing gets forgotten. Now I can refactor those
into correctness later.

I was amazed I could finish quite a bit of integration *and* a pretty
complete release in under one days work...

> ...write up a short
> tutorial on using "logical modules" and managing Squeak source code with
> CVS and such...
That sounds great. I intend to clean up some integration code I wrote a
while ago for the ModuleFiler (producing menu options to file out/mail
out code), and also mechanize the publishing process to allow me to
upload a new version, update the SM entry and send an announcement, all
in an integrated action.

Could you make a version of the ModuleFiler installable from SqueakMap,
so people can get at it easily? That way I can publish integration code
that builds on it...

(And maybe it should be called a PackageFiler, to avoid name clashes...)
 
Daniel Vainsencher