[squeak-dev] Package Hierarchy Map

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 14:00:13 UTC 2013


On 29 July 2013 14:13, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2013 um 14:51 schrieb Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>:
> […]
>>> IMHO we should start with Collection and make it depend on 'Nothing',
>>> or the other way round, make Collection depend on Kernel but Kernel depend
>>> on nothing.
>>
>> I would very much like to have Kernel depend on nothing, but we're a
>> long way from being able to do that.
>
> Why? (see below)

Well, we can attack the inter-package dependency problem from
anywhere. I just wanted to untangle System, and get
Etoys/MorphicExtras/Morphic unloadable before potentially frightening
people with "extreme" stuff like gutting Kernel of arithmetic, and
pulling ByteArray and such into Kernel (because ByteArray subclass:
#CompiledMethod).

>> Collections _can't_ depend on
>> nothing, because it must at the least depend on things like Object and
>> Class, which properly belong in Kernel.
>
>
> I looked around in Kernel and, boy, it is crowded.
> Eg, why is ObjectViewer in Kernel? (just mocking)

Decades of noone getting really serious about package dependency
management in a giant blob of persistent state will do that every time
:) That's mostly easy to fix though.

> Wouldn't it be possible to extract the actual kernel from "Kernel"
> and rename Kernel to Base or something?
> Only that we have the most basic objects (Object ±ProtoObject, Booleans, MNU (with dependencies))

Agreed.

frank

> Best
>         -Tobias


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list