Hi john

I would like to have your point of view on our work: ClassBox.
Modules adapted to class extensions. 
http://scgwiki.iam.unibe.ch:8080/SCG/559

Note that we use modules (with the idea of scope) while you use module 
for
source code without scoping rules.
Soon we hope to have a VM classBox aware :)





On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 06:11 PM, John W.Sarkela wrote:

> The deeper issue is that Class structure is typically an organization
> scheme that is orthogonal to a functional/utilitarian scheme.
>
> From a usage/loading point of view, one wishes to manage source
> code based on the function points that it introduces into the system,
> rather than *all* of the class structure of *all* of the affected 
> classes.
>
> For example, a well defined framework will commonly extend
> the behavior of base classes like Object or Collection.
> Thus, for the purposes of managing functional chunks of
> code, one almost certainly needs to store and access code
> based upon a functional capability point of view, rather than
> a runtime hierarchical structure point of view.
>
> It was for these reasons that SWT used build scripts to load
> functional elements of the image and used the ginsu module
> mechanism to handle modules that could contain "loose methods"
> that extended the behavior of existing classes. It further
> ensured that each definitional element of code was uniquely
> defined in the image. This is required to avoid problems of
> one module "stepping on" definitions from previously loaded
> modules.
>
> Cheers,
>
> :-}> John Sarkela
>
> On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 07:26 AM, jennyw wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:30:49AM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
>> wrote:
>>> Yep. Well, Squeak doesn't "play" that well with filebased source
>>> management tools.
>>> In Squeak we now have DVS which essentially is a "smart"
>>> file-in/file-out mechanism which makes it at least practical to use 
>>> CVS
>>> or any other filebased source management tool - but it is still not a
>>> perfect fit and will probably never be.
>>
>> This isn't so much a suggestion as a potentially dumb question, but 
>> ...
>>
>> If there was an option to filed-out in a directory structure instead 
>> of
>> a single file, such as:
>>
>> category/classname/classdef
>> category/classname/methodcategory/method1
>> category/classname/methodcategory/method2
>> etc.
>>
>> And filed-in in the same manner, wouldn't source control systems be 
>> able
>> to handle that better?  I know this probably wouldn't work well in CVS
>> (since it doesn't support renames), but with Subversion (successor to
>> CVS), BitKeeper, or a number of more recent CMS systems, it might work
>> better.  Or not?
>>
>> Jen
>>
>
>
>
Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do 
different? ...  especially if,
  by doing something different, today might not be your last day on 
earth" Calvin&Hobbes

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it..." Alan Kay.

Open Source Smalltalks: http://www.squeak.org, 
http://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/smalltalk.html
Free books for Universities at 
http://www.esug.org/sponsoring/promotionProgram.html
Free Online Book at 
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/WebPages/FreeBooks.html