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
|