On Feb 16, 2004, at 3:11 PM, C. David Shaffer wrote:

> Colin Putney wrote:
>
>>
>> Some thoughts about this:
>>
>> I think packages should be orthogonal to class categories. When 
>> browsing just one package, it's still quite useful to be able to 
>> group classes, and it would also be nice to be able to do it in terms 
>> of the entire system. For example, I might like to add a new kind of 
>> Magnitude as part of my package, and classify it that way, but still 
>> have it show up as part of my package.
>>
>>
> Colin,
>
> Why can't you do this with the current system?  Subclass PackageInfo 
> and override #classes.

Sorry, I didn't put that comment in the proper context. I was 
responding to Stéphane's suggestion that making class categories into 
objects rather than symbols managed by a SystemOrganizer could be a 
route to a more robust package system. I was saying that I'd like to 
see packages and class categories be orthogonal concepts, rather than 
have packages piggybacked onto system categories as they are now, or 
replace them all together.

Now, it is possible, by subclassing PackageInfo, to have a class in a 
system category other than the package name. But you really shouldn't 
have to hack the packaging system to do something as simple as 
classifying a class, and you certainly shouldn't have to do it 
repeatedly - once for every package you create.

> You're suggesting tool support then that reminds me of the VisualWorks 
> StORE system...and it was not well received at all.  Just search the 
> vwnc mailling list.  I don't have strong opinions on it myself but I 
> believe that the detractors say that it makes one too many views 
> available for the novice user.  There are probably other objections as 
> well.  Would you propose, for example, another browser akin to the 
> Package Pane Browser?  Personally, if StarBrowser could browse all 
> components of a Package (as expressed in PackageInfo) then I would be 
> pretty happy with it.  Maybe this has already been done?

Yes, a PackagePaneBrowser "done right," is exactly what I would 
propose, at least as a first step. If that ends up being too confusing, 
we can try other things. I do think the dev tools need to support 
packages explicitly, though. I think we can avoid the problems with 
StORE.

Colin