ClassBuilder changes

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Oct 24 08:09:32 UTC 2006


Hi Roel -

Roel Wuyts wrote:
> long time no see :-) rw is me.

Ah yes, should have thought of that.

> The implementation checks for these occurences and is validated by the 
> corresponding unit tests.
> 
> Do you think there is problems with it?

I am suspecting there is an issue with traits registration due to the 
copy of the original class you are creating in ClassBuilder. Which seems 
to be required by the notification mechanism but strikes me as 
conflicting by definition, since it asks for both, the old *and* the new 
class to be accessible at the same time. Which, by virtue of the 
invariants guaranteed in ClassBuilder, should never ever happen (and I 
am VERY suspicious of just throwing incomplete copies of classes around).

Question: Wouldn't it be more logical, less conflicting and just 
generally better design to drop the requirement of having both classes 
accessible and instead simply use a ClassDefinition object for the old 
class? This may look a lot like a class except that it isn't a behavior 
and therefore not subject to ClassBuilder invariants.

Cheers,
   - Andreas



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list