Loading pieces of the code would be nice but most people load everything and
then take what they need to add just that.  If there are tests that fail we
should address those issues.  Until there is a framework for loading parts
of packages I think this would make things harder to use and understand then
allowing people to get a working version and then remove what they don't
want for their own deployment.  Also consider the overlap.  We have a number
of hashes that use the same streaming framework.  It would be easier to load
cryptography and then delete SHA1 then it would be to package up all the
components needed for MD5 and then package all the same components again for
SHA256.  The code base is not so large, that the benefit would be worth the
time it would take and confusion it would cause.

Ron Teitelbaum


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
> Germán Arduino
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:21 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Cc: Cryptography Team Development List
> Subject: [Cryptography Team] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Some question regarding
> portability
> 
> 2011/5/10 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at beta9.be>:
> >
> > On 10 May 2011, at 14:45, Andreas Raab wrote:
> >
> >>>>> - Are announcements available ? Can this framework be loaded ?
> What is the official way to do this ?
> >>>>
> >>>> There are at least four different implementations of the
> announcements framework. They are not (fully) compatible with each other.
> The question is: which one is required by Zinc?
> >>>
> >>> I am not aware of that many versions.
> >>> I subclass Announcement, instanciate an Announcer, send #announce:
> and #on:send:do to it, that's all.
> >>
> >> Then how about adding ZnAnnouncement, ZnAnnouncer with the two or
> three methods that you actually need? Announcements always struck me as
> more of a pattern than a framework.
> >
> > I agree that Announcements are pretty simple.
> > Still, if it is available, then why not use it.
> > Sharing and reusing general purpose classes seems pretty important and
> elementary to me.
> >
> > Of course, this sharing and reuse makes package management and
> dependencies more difficult.
> >
> > For example, I need MD5, for which it seems to be necessary to load
> Cryptography in Squeak, a quite large framework that seems to be under
> development (many unit tests failed, MD5 works OK). You have chosen a
> shortcut in WebClient by implementing MD5 yourself. This runs against the
> refactoring rule but makes it easier for users because they don't need to
load
> a dependency.
> >
> 
> Hi Sven:
> 
> Yes, Cryptography is mostly a name to group different implementations of
> crypto related stuff. I agree that may not be the better idea thinking in
reuse.
> 
> I'm copying this mail to the crypto list (even when I think that most of
the
> people is here also) to discuss about better ways to name/install the
things.
> 
> Regards.
> Germán.
> _______________________________________________
> Cryptography mailing list
> Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography