Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2002 01:21 am, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote: 
> > > And the additional packages can have prerequisites, so that their
> > > loading can depend on the existence of particular classes.
> >
> > Does this mean we are building duplicate mechanisms for
> > dependencies? Or is this mechanism only intended to be used
> > "within" a SqueakMap package?
> 
> I came up with this because I have a couple of small groups of class 
> extensions in StarBrowser: one to deal with XML files (which won't 
> load right without YAXO being installed), one to deal with DVS, and 
> one to deal with SqueakMap.
> 
> Perhaps these would best be separate packages by themselves. However, 
> they're quite small and there's currently no dependency management in 
> SqueakMap. To avoid problems, I just packaged them all together with 
> conditional loading.

Ok.

> > To me this sounds like a "load script". Does it mean that I can not
> > "avoid" these to be run if I install a SAR containing them? That
> > would mean it "trips up" any other scheme for managing dependencies
> > (like the one I am planning).
> 
> As soon as SqueakMap develops dependency management, I'll use it. This 
> is an interim solution that lets me get the package out the door 
> easily.

Fair enough. I am no "packaging police"! :-) Just so that I know the
reasoning.

One way of "handling" these "embedded load scripts" is the idea I
vaguely introduced in 1.05 - to call SqueakMap with a block that
SqueakMap optionally then can ignore.

regards, Göran