On 22 Nov 2013, at 16:58, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes, you are right there.
>> I would think, spinning of a new, small package would be a good compromise?
> 
> For THREE METHODS?  My God, PLEASE, no!

Bingo! :) But seriously, why do you even care about the number of packages in the image?

frank

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 22.11.2013, at 11:58, 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:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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!".
>> 
>> Yes, you are right there.
>> I would think, spinning of a new, small package would be a good compromise?
>> 
>> Best
>>        -Tobias
>> 
>> 
>> 
>