On 27.08.2010, at 05:18, Andreas Raab wrote:

> On 8/24/2010 1:16 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> Manually re-ordering the update map is just a work-around for not being able to update multiple packages together. If we could, the order would not matter for moving classes/methods around.
> 
> You know there's a funny thing there: I actually think it may be possible to load multiple packages together these days as long as we're incrementally updating. We've fixed so many things in MC loading that I believe it *may* just be safe to do that.
> 
> Except that ... if you would then use that to load all the unloaded packages back in you'd may try to load the traits package together with a package using traits or the FFI package together with a package using the FFI etc. and that can't possibly work because in order to load the second package the first must be *installed*. Which requires loading them sequentially :-)
> 
> So there you have it. It's kind of a tricky situation.
> 
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

Well, my point was we only need to disturb the "good" loading order to be able to move classes or methods from one package to the next. If we didn't need to do that, the order could remain strictly by package dependency.

I guess for installing new packages we would not want the simultaneous load, for the reasons you describe. So first update the loaded packages together, then install the missing ones one-by-one?

This still leaves the questions of the order of initializers and pre/post install scripts. Not quite sure about that.

- Bert -