[Vm-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Plugin organization
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Mon Feb 2 19:31:44 UTC 2009
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:46 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 03:26:13PM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> > David T. Lewis wrote:
> > >>>This still looks perfectly good to me, so how about just using
> > >>>"VMConstruction-Plugins-*" rather than "Plugins-*"?
> > >>Maybe I'm missing something but how is any of this different from
> > >>VMMaker-Plugins which is the current categorization for plugins?
> > >
> > >The classes in category VMMaker-Plugins-OSProcessPlugin would then
> > >appear as part of the VMMaker package. If someone was maintaining
> > >VMMaker with Monticello, and also had OSProcessPlugin (or whatever)
> > >in their image, they would not want OSProcessPlugin to be saved as
> > >part of the VMMaker package.
> > I see. If that's the issue I would probably argue to split up VMMaker
> > (it's too big as it stands for my taste) perhaps into
> > VMMaker-Translation (CCodeGen, Slang), VMMaker-Interpreter
> > (ObjectMemory, Interpreter), and VMMaker-Plugins (all the plugins with
> > the common ones being in VMMaker-Plugins-Common). In which case
> > VMMaker-Plugins-OSProcess could live side by side with the rest of the
> > VMMaker packages.
> I agree that splitting up VMMaker might be be a good idea. I don't
> know if this is a good time to address the issue or not (there are
> some important VM projects under way, such as cog, and I don't know
> if reorganizing VMMaker would help or hurt).
I'll give it some thought soon. I'm hoping to put out a Cog release soon
and will make sure to decompose it when I do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vm-dev