Tweak mainstream in Squeak
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Jul 11 06:35:44 UTC 2006
>
>> Hi,
>> this example demonstrates the main reason why I think
>> the "full" image is so important:
>> If, at the point of this refactoring (or renaming, whatever),
>> the author had your OmniBrowser loaded, it would have been
>> no big deal to just make the required changes.
>> Using the RB, you get most of these changes *for free*.
>
> Actually, I suspect that this is exactly what was done. OmniBrowser
> is part of the Full 3.9 image, and it appears to have been
> refactored along with everything else in the full image. The break
> in compatibility is still a problem, though, for two reasons:
>
> First, that refactored version of OmniBrowser only works in Squeak
> 3.9. It doesn't work in Squeak 3.6, 3.7 or 3.8. If all I cared
> about was compatibility with the latest release of Squeak, I
> wouldn't be complaining in the first place.
>
> Second, it's just not feasible to have all the code in the Squeak
> world loaded into a single image. You can get a lot, I'm sure, but
> some packages conflict with other packages. If you rely on
> refactoring to mitigate API changes, you're going to break anything
> that isn't in your image when you make the change.
>
>> It's so much less work this way, compared to trying to find
>> out what has changed, exactly, between newer versions.
>
> I love refactoring. But it's not a solution to this problem.
Exact
I think that having first class interface or tools to understand what
is happening at the interface level
is important.
Stef
>
> Colin
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|