On 31 May 2013 16:05, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 12:16, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-05-31, at 10:39, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 May 2013 00:02, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-05-30, at 23:40, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 May 2013 18:47, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I noticed this morning that every package that uses ToolBuilder has a
>>>>>> transitive dependency on both Morphic and MVC (in the form of the ST80
>>>>>> package). This is caused by MorphicToolBuilder and MVCToolBuilder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest either rename 'ToolBuilder-Morphic' to 'Morphic-ToolBuilder'
>>>>>> and 'ToolBuilder-MVC' to 'ST80-ToolBuilder' (or'MVC-ToolBuilder').
>>>>>> This would move Morphic-specific stuff where it belongs, and ditto for
>>>>>> MVC.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I tried renaming the packages. It's fine, it works. I just don't
>>>>> know how to actually commit that to Trunk. Ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the issue? Isn't it simply that some classes moved from Toolbuilder to Morphic, and some from Toolbuilder to ST80? So if you commit all three packages it should just work?
>>>
>>> I opted to move ToolBuilder-Morphic to MorphicToolBuilder to maintain
>>> _some_ degree of separation.
>>
>> I don't feel that's necessary. It could just be part of Morphic.
>>
>>> It might be a fool's errand, given that
>>> loads of Morphic things reference UIManager and so already have a
>>> direct dependency on ToolBuilder.
>>>
>>> Assuming that this move is good (as in, better than
>>> ToolBuilder-Morphic -> Morphic-ToolBuilder, putting these classes in
>>> the Morphic package), I guess my newbie senses are tingling. This
>>> change guts 3 packages and adds 3 new ones. But I guess all I need to
>>> do - this is the part I'd like some reassurance with - is:
>>> * upload everything to trunk,
>>> * publish a config map with the new packages before ToolBuilder,
>>> * LEAVE the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages in the map,
>>> * (much later, maybe in the 4.5 windup) publish a new config map with
>>> the ToolBuilder-${NowEmpty} packages removed.
>>
>>
>> Ah, I mistakenly thought ToolBuilder was a single package. So except for making up new packages this sounds right.
>
> Right. Handily, the config map already loads SUnitGUI, Morphic and
> ST80 before the ToolBuilder-* packages, so I don't need to do anything
> (other than note the eventual removal of these packages).

Er. Or do I? One of my images broke _somehow_ (as in I don't remember
the actions prior to the breakage) with an emergency evaluator talking
about AnObsoleteMorphicUIManager not defining something or other. I
might not need to change the _order_ in the map, but perhaps I need to
push the updated _versions_ of things?

Sorry for being so dense where the config maps are concerned.

frank

> frank
>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>