About real packages in monticello

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Apr 14 06:39:49 UTC 2004


> On Apr 13, 2004, at 12:26 PM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>
>> nathanael was using monticello a lot recently for the traits and I 
>> think that you can get some valuable comments from him. I send this 
>> email publicly because other MC user may have suggestions too.
>> My summary on his comments is: we need first class packages to avoid 
>> to rely
>> on naming conventions and to be able to build more powerful 
>> applications.
>
> Stef,
>
> Having first class packages would be great.  If somebody comes up with 
> a model for them, I will happily extend Monticello to support it.  I 
> don't think the model itself need be very complicated: you just need a 
> named Package object with a way to add and remove Class objects as 
> well as MethodReferences for extensions to classes to other packages.  
> One decision you'll have to make is whether to have the package object 
> explicitly reference all of its methods, or to have some kind of rule 
> like "a package contains any methods belonging to one of its classes 
> that are *not* explicitly referenced by another package in the same 
> image".  You'll also need (I'd think) some way of ensuring that 
> classes and methods only belong to one package at a time.

Ok but I have no time. I guess as you.
So what do we do do a call for help?
Could we set a kind of working group around the topic. I think that 
this is important to raise the
level of awareness that having real package would be good. We could 
also have the donation model
on that. By the way did you create a pay pal account?

> The bigger piece of work will be getting usable tool support.  The 
> best bet at this point, I think, would be to use OmniBrowser to build 
> a browser set that made use of the new package model.

For the traits we are using it already.

>  I imagine that Colin might help with this once your model was done.


>>  Do you want me to ask alex to help you a bit for the bytecode loader 
>> because we have some time now (at least he should have ;))?
>
> Sure, if he wants to do that I can explain to him what needs to be 
> done.
Ok I will have a sync point with alex today.

>
> Avi
>
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list