Monticello 2 - request for information

J J azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Sun May 20 19:00:11 UTC 2007


I happened on something by accident today that I didn't know about before:

http://www.wiresong.ca/air/articles/category/monticello

>From this it sounds like Monticello 2 is quite far, in fact it sounds like 
it may even be close to ready to replace MC 1 already.


>From: "Philippe Marschall" <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Monticello 2 - request for information
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:58:48 +0200
>
>2007/5/20, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>> > On 5/18/07, J J <azreal1977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Any interest in making a separate list or something for MC 2
>> >> discussion?
>>
>>I'd prefer the discussion to take place on squeak-dev.
>>
>>On May 18, 2007, at 16:06 , Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> > One of the problems with MC is that it doesn't have an explicit
>> > representation of what goes in to a package, but instead relies on
>> > names.  The name of a class's cateogry determins which package the
>> > class it is in, and if a method is going to belong to a package other
>> > than the package of its class, it must be in a protocol whose name is
>> > '*' followed by the name of the package.  This was an expedient hack,
>> > but it causes lots of trouble in the long run.  A package should just
>> > be a list of classes and methods.  Perhaps the default is for all the
>> > classes in one particular cateogry to be in the same package, but that
>> > shouldn't be the rule.
>>
>>Actually, MC does *not* define what goes into a package. It leaves
>>this to PackageInfo. The default package info provides "virtual"
>>packages based on naming conventions in the image. This solved the
>>chicken-and-egg problem of how to introduce a packaging system
>>without having package tool support in all the coding tools.
>>
>>But it's very possible to have your own PackageInfo that just has a
>>list of classes and methods which is not category-based.  I believe
>>someone actually started working on this, but can't quite remember
>>the state of this effort.
>
>Seaside has a hack for this. The category is Seaside but the package
>is Seaside2.
>
>Cheers
>Philippe
>
>>- Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list