[Seaside-dev] Grease for Squeak

[Johan Brichau]

Hi John,

This is how it has been done since years and, indeed, I do not see a downside about creating the platform class for Squeak as a subclass of the Pharo platform class.

I don’t see why there would be a need for Seaside-Squeak-* packages at this time though. The differences should still be located in the Grease layer at this time.
Over time, this may become necessary for some packages but we try to avoid this whenever possible. Of course, this requires someone to monitor the Squeak platform.

Johan

> On 22 Dec 2014, at 01:46, John McKeon <p3anoman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Seasode-Developers
> I would like your opinions on proceeding with the creation of a Grease platform for Squeak. The question arises, why not just subclass GRPharoPlatform and override the few methods that need overriding for Squeak and be done with it. Things would be much simpler than the alternative method of copying GRPharoPlatform and making it Squeak's own. This path not only requires quite a bit of class copying (mostly the codecs amd related streams), but also requires a duplication of every Seaside-Pharo-• package to a Seaside-Squeak-• package as well (unless ther is something I am missing). Not to mention the rewiring of the ConfiguationOfSeaside3 that would be necessary.
> So, in light of the close relationship of Pharo to Squeak and the overwhelming amount of code reuse that it would afford, is subclassing that bad?
> I look forward to your thoughts
> 
> Happy Trails
> John McKeon
> 
> 
> -- 
> jmck.seasidehosting.st <http://jmck.seasidehosting.st/>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> seaside-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/attachments/20141222/f11e3634/attachment.htm