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
|