.mcv => .sar?

Colin Putney cputney at wiresong.ca
Tue Jul 29 17:55:39 UTC 2003


On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 05:31  AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> I definitely don't agree. This would really conflict with the current
> plan for dependencies/SM etc.
> One of the big things with that plan is that dependency information
> should NOT be inside the packages etc.

You misunderstand me. I don't mean a package should declare it's 
dependencies. I mean that Monticello can figure out the dependencies a 
priori.

Before loading a package, Monticello makes sure that the dependencies 
for compiling it are met. All classes have superclasses, all extension 
methods have classes, etc. The requirements can come from the image, 
the package, or another package present in the zip file. Monticello 
will take care of loading the package in the correct order so that all 
the dependencies are met before each method is compiled.

This doesn't replace SM's dependency facilities for two reasons:

1) It requires Monticello, which we've already established we don't 
want for general distribution of packages.

2) It's not going to be terribly useful for packages that depend on a 
another package by another author, which may get updated on SM 
independently.

It will more be useful for sending code between developers. Say I run 
into a bug in Seaside that Avi can't reproduce. I can send him a zip 
file containing my current development environment: Comanche, Seaside, 
MyApp. He can see what versions of those packages I was working from, 
what changes I've made to each of them, and how they differ from what's 
in his image.

We don't have to do all that right away,  of course. I'm just 
suggesting that the conventions for the proposed zip format shouldn't 
preclude putting multiple packages in it.

Colin



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list