On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:25:33PM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> On 2013-08-12, at 20:09, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 12 August 2013 16:42, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> >> Also, what's wrong with "Utilities updateFromServer"? Seems to me much nicer and easier to remember than "MCMcmUpdater updateFromServer". Call it a Facade, if you need to appease the gods of agile ;)
> > 
> > * I want Utilities to die. It's a mess of mixed responsibilities. Even
> > were that all cleaned up, it'd be a mess of mixed responsibilities
> > delegated to better suited places. It's Bad(tm) for modularity:
> > Utilities >> #updateFromServer makes System depend on
> > MonticelloConfiguration, which is already dependent on System.
> > Breaking that cycle is the whole point of this commit.
> > 
> > * With MCMcmUpdater >> #updateFromServer we concentrate updating in one place.
> > 
> > frank
> 
> 
> Maybe we need some high-level package then that can easily depend on all the stuff. MCMcmUpdater is just the mechanism, but the intent is something like "Squeak updateFromServer" (or even just "Squeak update"). Utilities used to be that place. I'm fine with something different, but having a gazillion single-purpose classes for such high-level operations seems to make things harder on users, not simpler.
> 
> Discussion welcome, of course :)
> 
> - Bert -
>

It walks like a utility and it quacks like a utility, so I think it's a Utility.

Dave