Monticello, SM2, BFAV in 3.7alpha

Chris Burkert chris at chrisburkert.de
Mon Feb 2 11:20:04 UTC 2004


Avi Bryant wrote:
> 
> On Feb 2, 2004, at 2:18 AM, Chris Burkert wrote:
> 
>>
>> Let's say I have package 'A' and package 'B'. And I have a class that 
>> belongs to A *and* B. Where should I put it?
>>
>> My solution was to create a third package and add this as a 
>> prerequiste of A *and* B. Not a good solution if there is a more 
>> complex example.
> 
> 
> Why not?  Can you give me a more complex example where this wouldn't be 
> a good solution?

The 'bad' thing is, that there will be a throng of little 
prerequistes in a more complex example. OK, you could say I have 
to refactor the whole thing. But in my example I just wanted to 
extract a piece of code without changing the original package.

Nevertheless it would be fine to 'extract' a part of a package 
without refactoring or changing the categories of the old package 
just by saying: my new package should consist of category 'a', 
'b' and the Class 'MyClass' and the method 
'AnotherClass>>myMysthicMethod' (just like the dual changesorter 
can do).

> When you say a class is "belongs to A *and* B", do you mean that 
> different parts of the class are provided by each package, or that the 
> identical code should exist in both packages?  If the latter, how do you 
> keep them in sync, or do you?

In my example I had the same code and I wanted to extract a piece 
of the original package.

I don't want to beg for a change of monticello, but this is a 
thing that I could use sometimes :-) don't listen to me ;-)

cheers
            Chris Burkert
-- 
http://www.chrisburkert.de/



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list