Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > Filing in via DVS will also remove methods?
> 
> Yes.  The whole point is that it brings the package in the image in sync
> with whatever's in the file out - by adding, changing, *or removing*
> methods to do so.
Cool. That makes it quite a bit better than what we have now, in terms
of filing things in, whether for comparing version or for updating
packages, because it should prevent messes like we had when SqueakMap
had some an implementation of #unpack removed, but people updating got
both versions.

> > if so, I need to start using
> > it for my packages. Are you going to create an SMDVSInstaller?
> 
> Yes, I probably should.
I wrote a message about refactoring SM, saying I though installers are
just a subset of code handlers that should be usable on the information
provided by SqueakMap, and that the collection of handler should be
pluggable, so that new handlers should show up in the tools easily.

This would allow, for example, to plug in variants that update using
DVS, and variants that warn you when updating a package will revert
modifications made by yourself to a package.

What do you think?

> > Could you elaborate on this?
> 
> Right.  The basic idea is:
[snip]
> That help?
Yes, alot, thanks.

> Avi