2007/5/20, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
> > On 5/18/07, J J <azreal1977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Any interest in making a separate list or something for MC 2
> >> discussion?
>
> I'd prefer the discussion to take place on squeak-dev.
>
> On May 18, 2007, at 16:06 , Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > One of the problems with MC is that it doesn't have an explicit
> > representation of what goes in to a package, but instead relies on
> > names.  The name of a class's cateogry determins which package the
> > class it is in, and if a method is going to belong to a package other
> > than the package of its class, it must be in a protocol whose name is
> > '*' followed by the name of the package.  This was an expedient hack,
> > but it causes lots of trouble in the long run.  A package should just
> > be a list of classes and methods.  Perhaps the default is for all the
> > classes in one particular cateogry to be in the same package, but that
> > shouldn't be the rule.
>
> Actually, MC does *not* define what goes into a package. It leaves
> this to PackageInfo. The default package info provides "virtual"
> packages based on naming conventions in the image. This solved the
> chicken-and-egg problem of how to introduce a packaging system
> without having package tool support in all the coding tools.
>
> But it's very possible to have your own PackageInfo that just has a
> list of classes and methods which is not category-based.  I believe
> someone actually started working on this, but can't quite remember
> the state of this effort.

Seaside has a hack for this. The category is Seaside but the package
is Seaside2.

Cheers
Philippe

> - Bert -
>
>
>
>