Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > About SystemNavigation - it has a nice comment that does answer some of
> > the questions I had, but can you say something about how it's supposed
> > to fit into everything? for example, why all the similar 
> > implementations
> > of self systemNavigator and not one implementation in Object (wait!
> > don't shoot!) in a class extension? it's not very clear in what case
> > you'd need state for this bunch of utility methods, so what examples 
> > did
> > you have in mind when you made them instance side?
Still would be glad for answers to the rest of these... :-)

[Why not use class extensions]
> Because right now we do not have a good way of dealing with class 
> extensions. As soon as
> we will get a real package notion this will be easy to fix. But may be 
> we should do that now.
> I did not discuss this point with other.
The DVS method-category-name-convention is a hack, but it works.
Furthermore, PackageInfo itself and SpaghettiTracer provide some query
tools that are aware of these class extensions. I think that anyone
refactoring the image now should seriously consider using this kind of
class extensions. It might not be pretty, but it's better than making
the code indirect because it can't be put into the correct class.

Daniel