Hi Andreas,

that part of the code was not me, I think.

For the change notification I only asumed to get the *name* of a  
renamed or removed element to be passed around (whether a class or a  
method or whatever else), not the removed/renamed element itself (for  
the reasons you mention). But the version in the image is not exactly  
mine (whoever put it in there made some changes for better or for  
worse), and this version does not seem to be from me. But ok...

I can fix this, I guess (I think that Nathanael was the maintainer  
for the class builder, but I do not know whether he is still around  
for this)...

You need this urgently, I assume ?

PS: Can you reply personally to me as well ? I do not follow the  
squeak list as often as I should :-( But I do fix things that get  
included in the releases :-)


On 24 Oct 2006, at 10:09, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Hi Roel -
>
> Roel Wuyts wrote:
>> long time no see :-) rw is me.
>
> Ah yes, should have thought of that.
>
>> The implementation checks for these occurences and is validated by  
>> the corresponding unit tests.
>> Do you think there is problems with it?
>
> I am suspecting there is an issue with traits registration due to  
> the copy of the original class you are creating in ClassBuilder.  
> Which seems to be required by the notification mechanism but  
> strikes me as conflicting by definition, since it asks for both,  
> the old *and* the new class to be accessible at the same time.  
> Which, by virtue of the invariants guaranteed in ClassBuilder,  
> should never ever happen (and I am VERY suspicious of just throwing  
> incomplete copies of classes around).
>
> Question: Wouldn't it be more logical, less conflicting and just  
> generally better design to drop the requirement of having both  
> classes accessible and instead simply use a ClassDefinition object  
> for the old class? This may look a lot like a class except that it  
> isn't a behavior and therefore not subject to ClassBuilder invariants.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas