Binaries in Monticello
Avi Bryant
avi at beta4.com
Mon Feb 16 20:32:56 UTC 2004
On Feb 16, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Julian Fitzell wrote:
> I don't know StORE, so I don't know how similar it is, but it seems to
> me that you end up always working in a package. It's not another view
> for a novice user, they just create a package (or there's a default
> package, whatever) and all the code you write ends up being in that
> package. I don't think novices need to know any more than that. More
> experienced folks would need to know that if they want to make changes
> to the base system, they should actually be in the appropriate base
> package, etc...
Yes, I think having the tools organize around the idea of "current
package" is a very good way of managing the complexity. You open a
browser on a package and it still shows all the
categories/classes/methods as normal, but any item that belongs to the
current package or has members that belong to the current package will
show up in bold (or in black vs grey, or something). Then there could
be a simple context menu item for "add to current package"/"remove from
current package".
That works best if your packages are large - if you start getting too
fine a granularity it breaks down. I wonder if you could unify the
idea of category and subpackage? So, Colin talked earlier about adding
something to the Magnitudes category, say from the Monticello package.
Maybe that becomes the Monticello.Magnitudes subpackage, which is
different from the Core.Magnitudes subpackage? But that's getting
ahead of ourselves...
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|