A little namespace "proposal"
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Apr 6 20:39:28 UTC 2004
Martin Wirblat <sql.mawi at t-link.de> wrote:
[SNIP]
> >Eh... you lost me. "Many small namespaces in the Full image?" I assume
> >you are talking about the "many small packages"? I still think that
> >is a good idea, at least much smaller than the current image.
>
> You said:
> So typically we have say these Namespaces (which I will use in the
> rest of the post as examples) and many more:
> Kernel
> Collections
> SqueakMap
> Seaside
Oh, well that was only as an example. I haven't decided yet what kind of
granularity we want.
> >> My gut feeling was and is that the official Full image should be
> >> only one single namespace. Of course the question then arises, what
> >> the goal of such namespaces is. And surely this will have some
> >> drawbacks,
> >
> >I am not sure I disagree with that. I mean - that is what it is today.
> >But I still want to chop it up into well separated *packages* that can
> >have their own releases cycles etc. As Andreas says - those things
> >aren't one-to-one.
>
> I am not sure either. But the problem is not to chop up the image into
> packages that live in one namespace. This construction of namespaces
> ( one for Full and one for every SM package not in Full ) will enable
> loading together arbitrary SM packages into Full for a specific image!
> We can even integrate (i.e. add and make a new Full ) single existing
> SM packages to Full without name clashes.
>
> The problem will be only to integrate-add to Full packages from SM
> which are conflicting without their shielding namespace ( everyone who
> wants his package potentially being integrated in Full has to take
> care of name clashes with Full - as it is today ). And some other more
> ambitious things will not work at all.
>
> So in short, the main intention of SM would be fully delivered by this
> "restrictive" namespace policy and your proposal. But, as I said, I am
> not sure what weighs more, potential problems or potential chances.
> Sure I am regarding the problem of replacing meaningful with
> meaningless info. Many people are underestimating this problem, or
> they are not aware of it at all.
>
> regards, Martin
Well, nice to hear that people like it at least. :) Btw, the "shy"
mechanism etc - in order to satisfy Andreas etc we might need it and
perhaps even an extra tweak. I will post again on that later.
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|