Am 2011-05-11 um 01:20 schrieb Germán Arduino:

> 2011/5/10 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at beta9.be>:
>> 
>> On 10 May 2011, at 14:45, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> - Are announcements available ? Can this framework be loaded ? What is the official way to do this ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are at least four different implementations of the announcements framework. They are not (fully) compatible with each other. The question is: which one is required by Zinc?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not aware of that many versions.
>>>> I subclass Announcement, instanciate an Announcer, send #announce: and #on:send:do to it, that's all.
>>> 
>>> Then how about adding ZnAnnouncement, ZnAnnouncer with the two or three methods that you actually need? Announcements always struck me as more of a pattern than a framework.
>> 
>> I agree that Announcements are pretty simple.
>> Still, if it is available, then why not use it.
>> Sharing and reusing general purpose classes seems pretty important and elementary to me.
>> 
>> Of course, this sharing and reuse makes package management and dependencies more difficult.
>> 
>> For example, I need MD5, for which it seems to be necessary to load Cryptography in Squeak, a quite large framework that seems to be under development (many unit tests failed, MD5 works OK). You have chosen a shortcut in WebClient by implementing MD5 yourself. This runs against the refactoring rule but makes it easier for users because they don't need to load a dependency.
>> 
> 
> Hi Sven:
> 
> Yes, Cryptography is mostly a name to group different implementations
> of crypto related stuff. I agree that may not be the better idea
> thinking in reuse.
> 
> I'm copying this mail to the crypto list (even when I think that most
> of the people is here also) to discuss about better ways to
> name/install the things.


FWIW, I just happen to have implemented a Gravatar package for Seaside.
That needs MD5 for generating image urls and I did not want to depend 
on the Crypto package, either. Thus I took the MD5 from Cryptography
and built it into a one-method call… not beautiful at all but works :/
Would there have been a better method?

So Long,
	-Tobias