The current implementation is a bit boring, yes :-) The idea is that 
you can ask each event for 'useful' information, and calculate it in a 
lazy way so that clients have t worry less. For example, if you get an 
'added' event for a method, you can ask this event (through this 
uniform interface) for its 'itemMethod' (returning you the method that 
has been added), its 'itemProtocol' (the protocol for the method), its 
'itemClass' (the class of the method), etc. For some of these items, I 
do not have this information readily at hand (it might not be in the 
environment) but I can calculate it from information that I know about. 
But these pieces of code are not there yet, so that is why they look 
uniform. For example, I will add some code in 'itemClass' that 
calculates the class from the method, if the method is known but the 
class is not. I hope this makes it a bit more clear :-) It will be 
easier to follow once implemented :-) :-)



On Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003, at 11:51 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Vainsencher 
wrote:

> [class names]
> I proposed "Code" instead of "System" as being much specific and
> intention revealing, though "code" isn't a very precise term in
> Smalltalk.
>
> <nit pick>BTW, can you explain the rationale for the methods in
> SystemChangeNotifier>item kinds? it seems very repetitive and a bit
> cumbersome. </nit pick>
>
> Daniel
>
> Roel Wuyts <wuyts at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> Oops, I forgot to add this point on my to-do list. It is one of the
>> reasons that I did not write too much documentation yet (because
>> otherwise I have to keep it up-to-date whenever I refactor some name
>> :-(  ). The current names 'grew' while developing but are not really
>> good.
>>
>> Note that the names you propose will not really do though (since for
>> example, the current  SystemAddedEvent can be used with classes,
>> methods, instance variables, etc.). That is why I took this name:-) 
>> But
>> since I know I am not very good at names any input on this front is
>> welcome :-)
>>
>> PS: Thanks for pointing out that it is one of the Squeak traditions to
>> not use prefixes for class names. This used to be the convention in
>> Smalltalk (at least in VisualWorks), to make it clear which code
>> belonged together when not seeing it in categories, and for avoiding
>> name clashes. I was not aware that this was changed in the meantime in
>> Squeak, even in the absence of namespaces.
>>
>> PS2: [fun] you have to agree that SystemEvent is already a much better
>> name than ExtensionalClassification :-) :-) Maybe I'll learn it in the
>> end :-) :-)
>>
>> On Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003, at 10:25 Europe/Zurich, Brent Pinkney wrote:
>>
>>> Roel,
>>>
>>> I have not had the time to install and test your code.
>>>
>>> I do think however that we must be very careful when naming new
>>> classes, especially of this significance.
>>>
>>>>> (4) SystemEvent: root class of the events that implement most of 
>>>>> the
>>>>> functionality
>>>>>  ...snip...
>>>>> so you find classes SystemAddedEvent, SystemRenamedEvent, ...
>>>
>>> One of the traditions of Smalltalk and Squeak in particular is that
>>> class names do not describe their implementation or namespace.
>>>
>>> This exact issue has come up recently on the list with the
>>> introduction of the Deprecation exception. That class was originally
>>> called DeprecatedException. This, I hope you agree, does not match 
>>> the
>>> feel established by the ANSI exceptions: DivideByZero and
>>> MessageNotUnderstood, Halt.
>>>
>>> The mailing list seemed to agree and the class was renemed to
>>> Deprecation.
>>>
>>> Similarly I would strongly urge you to concider a similar naming
>>> convention\hierarchy for the events...
>>>
>>> e.g. (of the top of my head)
>>>
>>> Event
>>>    CodeModified
>>>       ClassChanged
>>>       ClassRenamed
>>>       ClassAdded
>>>       ClassRemoved
>>>       MethodAdded
>>>       MethodRemoved
>>>
>>> PS. For this same reason, objects like SMObject and MagmaCollection
>>> make me unhappy, despite their excellent functionality.
>>>
>>> There is something very homely and intimate in the Smalltalk
>>> convention which prevents is feeling like _code_. It is about as far
>>> away from Hungarian notation as you can get - Squeak has ubiqitious
>>> reflection to assist the developer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>> Roel Wuyts                                                   Software
>> Composition Group
>> roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch                       University of Bern,
>> Switzerland
>> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~wuyts/
>> Board Member of the European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org
>
>
Roel Wuyts                                                   Software 
Composition Group
roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch                       University of Bern, 
Switzerland
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~wuyts/
Board Member of the European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org