On 25.08.2010, at 22:09, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> But I'm not so sure about the changes to MC, as below.
>> 
>> Did you verify it even works? I don't think MCPackage>>unload is actually used when unloading a package. A better place would be MCPackageManager>>unregister and MCPackageManager class>>forPackage:.
> 
> Yes, I did verify this works, at least for the
> SmalltalkImage>>unloadAllKnownPackages (which was the original
> starting point for this discussion).  That works.

Ah. I was thinking about unloading a package from the Monticello UI. 

>> Also, this introduces a hard dependency on MCMcmUpdater into the Monticello package. So this should at least be protected using
>> 
>>        Smalltalk at: #MCMcmUpdater ifPresent: [:updater | ... ]
>> 
>> or using some other mechanism of decoupling.
>> 
>> E.g., I see MCPackageManager class sends "self changed: #allManagers" whenever a package is added or removed. Maybe listening to that would be better than adding these explicit notification?
>> 
>> - Bert -
> 
> I'll look into the rest of this later tonight when I get a chance - a
> good time to understand more of the code.
> 
> -Chris

Sounds like a plan :)

- Bert -