Irregardless of the fact it employs a slightly more robust
implementation, the fact that Seaside needs an LRUCache shows that the
_concept_ of an LRUCache is needed in at least 3 places.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> You said there are already two places where it's used, right?  If
> there's even just ONE MORE place that pops up, we'll find that clearly
> Balloon (WTH?) is the wrong place for it.
>
>    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/07/rule-of-three.html
>
> I think you should stay consistent in your statements about
> "modularity."  It wraps a Dictionary, it supplies #at: for access.
> You said if it walks and quacks like a collection, it goes in
> Collections.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 November 2013 10:09, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 22.11.2013, at 11:04, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 November 2013 01:03, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:31:37AM +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Chris Muller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm sorely tempted to move LRUCache to Balloon. It's in System at the
>>>>>>>> moment, making Balloon depend on System.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LRUCache is generic, so how about Collections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's generic, but the implementation is not generally useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how the concept of a LRU cache is in any way related to Balloon.
>>>>> It seems to me that if it is useful enough to be included in the system at
>>>>> all, then it should live in a package category that reflects the actual meaning
>>>>> of the class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose for the sake of argument that Balloon was being maintained as an
>>>>> external package outside of the trunk image. Suppose also that an LRU cache
>>>>> was something worth having in the trunk. What package would you put it in?
>>>>
>>>> I would put it in its own package, called Cache. I anticipate heated
>>>> discussion around yet another package with a single class.
>>>>
>>>> But really, LRUCache is _not_ generic, because _noone uses it_.
>>>
>>> Yea, that's why Seaside implements its own…
>>>
>>> </sarcasm> <!-- sorry -->
>>
>> Meh. The fundamental problem I'm trying to address is to tease these
>> packages apart. If I make deliberate mistakes, and put LRUCache in
>> Balloon only because that's the most basic user and doesn't add any
>> additional dependencies, _that is a win_. It's one slightly less
>> horrible dependency.
>>
>> If someone else takes umbrage at such a ridiculous idea, and makes a
>> new package, or puts it in Collections, _and doesn't add a new
>> ridiculous dependency_, then that's even better.
>>
>> No, LRUCache doesn't belong in Balloons. It may well be generally
>> useful. But moving it there fixes a real problem. What I don't want is
>> to be paralysed with discussions like "but this is not theoretically
>> perfect!".
>>
>> frank
>>
>>> Best
>>>         -Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>