On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:

> Yup. I'm thinking now on how to make it even better by having more tool
> support - making class extensions more visible, and integrating the
> ModuleFiler into the browser.

Cool.

> One thing that saved me a lot of time was that I used the information of
> the change sets to recategorize the methods automatically. That way
> there are no mistakes, nothing gets forgotten. Now I can refactor those
> into correctness later.

Can you elaborate?  I'm not sure what you mean here.

> That sounds great. I intend to clean up some integration code I wrote a
> while ago for the ModuleFiler (producing menu options to file out/mail
> out code), and also mechanize the publishing process to allow me to
> upload a new version, update the SM entry and send an announcement, all
> in an integrated action.
>
> Could you make a version of the ModuleFiler installable from SqueakMap,
> so people can get at it easily? That way I can publish integration code
> that builds on it...
>
> (And maybe it should be called a PackageFiler, to avoid name clashes...)

Yes, s/Module/Package/g in the DVS source would probably be a good idea.
Do you think it's important to put up (Module|Package)Filer on SqueakMap
by itself, or would it be ok just as part of DVS?  Are you still building
on top of the older, standalone ModuleFiler class?  Personally, I think
the fileIn code in DVS is just as generally useful as the fileOut code...