<div dir="ltr"><div><div>No, I don't think it's that rubbish. The categories are primarily for helping the user to classify/find things.<br>So that would mean that packages have to divorce from categories, like the Pharo team did.<br>
</div><div>I don't know, maybe it is necessary for proper packaging, but it's far from simple...<br></div><br></div>Maybe the kind of solution you are seeking is to split packages one level further like Pharo did.<br>
This way you can load only some kernel collections.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/11/22 Frank Shearar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 22 Nov 2013, at 16:59, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> You said there are already two places where it's used, right? If<br>
> there's even just ONE MORE place that pops up, we'll find that clearly<br>
> Balloon (WTH?) is the wrong place for it.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/07/rule-of-three.html" target="_blank">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/07/rule-of-three.html</a><br>
><br>
> I think you should stay consistent in your statements about<br>
> "modularity." It wraps a Dictionary, it supplies #at: for access.<br>
> You said if it walks and quacks like a collection, it goes in<br>
> Collections.<br>
<br>
</div>No, I said that was a rubbish reason for grouping things together :)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
frank<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 22 November 2013 10:09, Tobias Pape <<a href="mailto:Das.Linux@gmx.de">Das.Linux@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> On 22.11.2013, at 11:04, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 22 November 2013 01:03, David T. Lewis <<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:31:37AM +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote:<br>
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Chris Muller wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Frank Shearar <<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorely tempted to move LRUCache to Balloon. It's in System at the<br>
>>>>>>>> moment, making Balloon depend on System.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> LRUCache is generic, so how about Collections?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It's generic, but the implementation is not generally useful.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I don't see how the concept of a LRU cache is in any way related to Balloon.<br>
>>>>> It seems to me that if it is useful enough to be included in the system at<br>
>>>>> all, then it should live in a package category that reflects the actual meaning<br>
>>>>> of the class.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Suppose for the sake of argument that Balloon was being maintained as an<br>
>>>>> external package outside of the trunk image. Suppose also that an LRU cache<br>
>>>>> was something worth having in the trunk. What package would you put it in?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I would put it in its own package, called Cache. I anticipate heated<br>
>>>> discussion around yet another package with a single class.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> But really, LRUCache is _not_ generic, because _noone uses it_.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Yea, that's why Seaside implements its own…<br>
>>><br>
>>> </sarcasm> <!-- sorry --><br>
>><br>
>> Meh. The fundamental problem I'm trying to address is to tease these<br>
>> packages apart. If I make deliberate mistakes, and put LRUCache in<br>
>> Balloon only because that's the most basic user and doesn't add any<br>
>> additional dependencies, _that is a win_. It's one slightly less<br>
>> horrible dependency.<br>
>><br>
>> If someone else takes umbrage at such a ridiculous idea, and makes a<br>
>> new package, or puts it in Collections, _and doesn't add a new<br>
>> ridiculous dependency_, then that's even better.<br>
>><br>
>> No, LRUCache doesn't belong in Balloons. It may well be generally<br>
>> useful. But moving it there fixes a real problem. What I don't want is<br>
>> to be paralysed with discussions like "but this is not theoretically<br>
>> perfect!".<br>
>><br>
>> frank<br>
>><br>
>>> Best<br>
>>> -Tobias<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>