About KCP and automatic initialize
ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Sep 15 19:33:32 UTC 2003
On Lundi, sep 15, 2003, at 20:52 Europe/Zurich, Colin Putney wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After reading all the posts on this topic with interest, here what's
> beginning to become clear to me. Although there would be some benefit
> in having a standard pattern for initialization, it wouldn't be great
> enough to justify the chaos of migrating to it.
What chaos?
Why do you call that a chaos? I really do not get it. I have a similar
changes in my image since two years now and
this is not a problem.
> Making this change would create an *enormous* number of bugs. A lot of
> them would be easy to find and fix, sure. Others will be more subtle.
> And this is pretty much an "all or nothing" change. Unlike, say, the
> network rewrite, you can't have both mechanisms in place at the same
> time and gradually move things over.
But if a class does not call initialize then it is not call after. Are
there classes that define initialize but call it
in other ways than via new in the image?
> During the transition period, we'd have a lot of really ugly code
> written by people who want to have their package work in both the old
> system and the new system. Remember all the little work-arounds to
> avoid deprecation warnings? This will be worse:
>
> new
> ^ self systemSendsInitialize
> ifTrue: [super new]
> ifFalse: [super new initialize]
>
> <shudder>
how many packages really have to do that: 2000 or 3000 or simply may be
3 or 4?
> Let's not go there.
I should say that I admire your dramatic way of presenting the
situation.
>
> Colin
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|