[squeak-dev] Naming of method categories (AKA protocols)

Dale Henrichs dale.henrichs at gemtalksystems.com
Mon Jan 2 17:08:46 UTC 2023


The *<package-name> convention dates back to the origins of Monticello (20
years ago?). With package membership  encoded into fields already
maintained by the browser and already stored by the system (class and
method categories) Monticello could be easily introduced into an existing
system without forcing everyone to convert to a new set of tools.

At the end of the day, Monticello doesn't need to change, while the system
tools that work with packages classes and methods WOULD have to change, so
it isn't really a bug in Monticello, but  a lack of system/tool support ...

The Pharo folks changed their tools and internal models (in the last 5-10
years?) to not be entirely dependent on the category-naming convention, but
of course, the *<package-name> convention would still need to be supported
for use with cross-platform Monticello-based projects like Seaside.

Dale


On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 7:03 AM Stephen Travis Pope <
stephen at heaveneverywhere.com> wrote:

>
> I’d say this is a pretty serious bug in Monticello, and that, even if it’s
> easy to explain, it makes the system much harder to navigate (and, more
> importantly, to learn), and should be reversed right away.
>
> Why not have a field in the method object for package membership (a Set,
> of course, to allow multiple values)?
>
> stp
>
> --------
>
> Stephen Travis Pope    Ojai, California, USA
>     [image: pastedGraphic.tiff]
>      http://HeavenEverywhere.com
>      http://FASTLabInc.com
>      https://vimeo.com/user19434036/videos
>      http://heaveneverywhere.com/Reflections
>
>
>
> On Jan 1, 2023, at 3:41 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>
> It's just how Monticello works out which methods go in which packages. I
> agree it can result in some clumsiness but it is very simple to implement
> and perhaps more importantly, to explain to users.
>
> On 2023-01-01, at 1:20 PM, Stephen Travis Pope <
> stephen at heaveneverywhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello again,
>
> In reference to my previous query, when did it become fashionable to have
> method category (protocol) names that signified the package?  How does this
> help in navigating the system?
>
> It’s quite confusing when I go to a system class in the browser and see a
> list of protocols like this,
>
> <protocols.jpg>
>
> Isn't there a field in the method header where we could store this, and
> still use the simpler standard list of protocols to assist in learning the
> system?  Remember, the first rule of reuse is, “if you can’t find it, you
> can’t reuse it.”
>
> stp
>
> --------
>
> Stephen Travis Pope    Ojai, California, USA
>    <pastedGraphic.tiff>
>     http://HeavenEverywhere.com
>     http://FASTLabInc.com
>     https://vimeo.com/user19434036/videos
>     http://heaveneverywhere.com/Reflections
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Oxymorons: Soft rock
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20230102/27df81d7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 2442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20230102/27df81d7/attachment.tiff>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list