Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> If the systems require different configurations, then there should be
> different configurations.
> 
Absolutely, and Metacello already handles the difference.  Handling it by
creating two separate Classes is solving a problem that doesn't exist, while
creating a problem for developers - who now have to do extra work for no
discernible reason.


Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> re-using configurations is not that important
> 
Maybe not for code reuse, but logistically, it's much harder.  I'm going
through SqS and SqMap making old interesting projects loadable.  A little
more effort * 100 projects is significant.


Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> What *is* more important is that the configuration has actually been
> tested in Squeak, and not just been copied over from other places.
> 

Yes, but that is irrelevant here.  If someone adds the config to the inbox,
that presumably means they have tested it in Squeak.  And, there would be
nothing to prevent someone from creating a new config from scratch that
didn't work; maybe more likely not to work because a perfectly good config
has to be split apart.  Anyway, I thought that's why we're going to do
automatic testing.

In summary, if we can make life easier, why not?  For example, couldn't
ConfigBrowser select classes that start with ConfigurationOf instead of
MetacelloConfigruation subclasses?

Sean
-- 
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Cross-fork-Metacello-configurations-tp2226390p2226525.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.