On 15-Nov-09, at 8:46 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 05:03:11PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> On 15.11.2009, at 16:48, David T. Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> There is currently a package dependency for VMMaker that requires  
>>> the
>>> entire Speech package (for KlattSynthesizerPlugin). This can be  
>>> resolved
>>> through a minor refactoring of Speech, mainly to move the shared  
>>> pool
>>> class KlattResonatorIndices into a separate package, e.g.  
>>> "SharedPool-Speech".
>>>
>>> Are there any objections to adopting the package name "SharedPool- 
>>> Speech"
>>> for this? By implication, we might also have "SharedPool-FFI" and  
>>> so forth.
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to have packages named "Speech-Shared"  
>> and
>> "Speech-Plugin" containing the shared pool and the plugin,  
>> respectively?
>> That would go along well with the 8 or so other Speech categories.
>
> That would be a good logical organization, but doesn't that require
> splitting the existing Speech package into a total of 9 or 10  
> categories?

To elaborate a bit, it's not a good idea to have overlapping packages  
in Monticello 1.x. So if there's a package named "Speech-Shared",  
there should not be a package named "Speech." That would imply that  
the other categories "Speech-*" are all separate packages. That's  
probably not what we want.

David, "SharedPool-Speech" sounds good to me.

Colin