On 14 February 2013 01:20, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>
>
> Craig wrote:
>
>> >      If we have the raw class dependency data, why do we anything else?
>> > And we may very well find that the groupings expressed by PackageInfo
>> > (class category) stuff are wrong anyway...
>
>
> Frank replied:
>
>> Well, because PackageInfo is what we have right now. But the
>>
>> counterargument, for what it's worth, is "then let's correct the
>> PackageInfo data until they do make sense as modules".
>
>
> The system is too big to look at all the class-level dependencies all at
> once. Even just looking at package dependencies, Tobias had to simplify the
> graph to be able to get meaningful insights. Of course, to actually break
> the dependencies, yeah, we'll have to go down to the level of classes and
> methods. But the high-level overview can help us sort out priorities.
>
> Also, note that PackageInfo and class categories aren't the same thing.
> Packages can include extension methods on classes not in the package, and
> exclude extensions that belong to other packages. It's true that examining
> the system via class category doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's not
> what we're doing here.

I'm not suggesting that PackageInfo and class categories are the same
thing although, having said that, unless you know a fair bit more
about Squeak than just the UI that's not clear.

frank

> Colin
>
>
>