On 04/10/2007, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> An example, let's say Magritte uses Component and so does Seaside. Sure,
> they are used a lot together in many images and perhaps my proposal would
> eventually make one of them to rename Component to something more
> specific. But if a specialised Open GL library used a class Component it
> would most likely not be loaded at the same time in that many images so it
> would NOT cause the users to cheer for a rename. See my point?
>

But then, someone who worked with Component moved to another image and
found that Component here is not a Component there and he needs to
keep in mind every time that there are different Components in
different images. And then everytime he will see reference to
Component, he will keep losing time, checking is that Package deals
with Seaside component, or with OpenGL component, or maybe with Foo
Component?
And, in contrast, having full notation like Seaside::Component (or any
other proposed form), he'll never be confused while studiyng/checking
code in any image.

Personally, i tend to have one huge big image for my dev purposes. I
like to have all in single place, rather than running couple squeaks
and maintain number of images and keep remember where they live, what
packages they use e.t.c.
This is much more convenient - suppose i want to update something, so
i need to update only single image once, but having many images i
forced to do that many times..


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.