Nathanael was planning to throw away SystemOrganization and write a new 
one for traits so there is an opportunity there. The problems is that 
we cannot invent the problem with file based system if we do not have 
to do it. So we will see what will happen and if the new 
SystemOrganization is capable or not of that and how other can adapt it 
to their needs.

On Jeudi, nov 6, 2003, at 02:25 Europe/Zurich, Avi Bryant wrote:

>
> On Nov 5, 2003, at 4:48 PM, Brian T Rice wrote:
>>
>> SystemOrganization and such, which the Browser classes rely upon, 
>> could be
>> replaced or aided by more component-oriented source descriptions, 
>> much as
>> PackageInfo is, but probably enhanced to provide the same 
>> functionality
>> style of SysOrg and such. Then, refactoring the IDE to use this
>> abstraction gives an immediate genericity benefit of being able to 
>> browse
>> remote repositories, file-based sources (Monticello, changesets, 
>> etc.).
>> Now, I can only speculate how far this could go, but that benefit 
>> right
>> there seems like an immediate signal that it's worth exploring. Anyone
>> who's used the remote contents browsers knows how brittle they can be:
>> imagine if that kind of tool were just a modularly-added feature 
>> instead
>> of a special case of a larger more brittle part.
>
> That would be very nice.  Certainly, if someone comes up with a 
> specification for such an interface, I'll commit to adapting 
> PackageInfo and Monticello to support it.
>
> Avi
>
>