On 7/17/13, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Compression depends on Files because of things like ZipArchive. That's
>> a fairly reasonable dependency.
>>
>> Files depends on Compression because CompressedSourceStream and
>> FileStream use GZipReadStream and GZipWriteStream. Other than causing
>> a cycle, this dependency's not terrible either.
>
> Maybe we should try to think of lower-level packages as the ones
> closer to the OS.

Yes.

  Remember how Smalltalk was supposed to make OS's
> obsolete by giving access to OS facilities via the programming API.
>
> Thinking from that angle, which one, either Files or Compression,
> would be the one that should be lower level?
>
> IMO, it's Files.

Yes.

  Accessing the file system is something that should
> be the responsibility of a single, lower-level package

Yes.

and
> *compressing* things is an "Application-level" thing.

Yes.


> There is no inherent requirement to compress anything, it's an
> app-level resposnsibility.  Therefore, I don't see it as reasonable
> that Files should depend on anything in Compression.

Yes.

> The methods in FileStream which reference GZipReadStream and
> GZipWriteStream should be moved to Compression.


Yes.


H.