Posted by
Stéphane Ducasse on
Oct 31, 2011; 11:09am
URL: https://forum.world.st/Is-RPackage-dead-tp3947548p3955442.html
> Hi,
>
> Wait. The RPackage should not hold more than one category. That is the whole point. If you will allow mapping more than one category to an RPackage, we will either never get rid of categories or we will enter into the messy territory of nested packages. At this time, we certainly do not want the former, and we cannot afford the later.
The problem is that we are all talking about different things.
- RPackage is fully working: it does not need any category. RPackage is a list of class + a list of method (nicely optimized to be queried efficienly).
RPackage is equivalent to MCPackage when MCPackages are limited to top level categories (i.e. Foo and *foo).
- Now we have MCPackage and they are overlapping multiple categories and this is the mess. Because they cross multiple PackageInfo and….
> Please, let's keep it simple. There is no point allowing people to create mess by default. There is no practical use case for having this extra stuff. In fact, we know from experience that if we want to manage a larger than trivial system, we need strict conventions. Anything else pretty much fails in the long run.
>
> So, I come back to my point. At this point, we can safely load RPackage in the image (actually, in the Moose image, it is always loaded) and have tools be built on top of them. Then in Pharo 1.5 or later we start transitioning by not allowing people to commit more than one Category/RPackage in a Monticello package.
I agree now marcus is afraid that it will generate too many packages. For me I would like to have a simple model.
> It's a smooth transition that can be spread over a longer period of time.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2011, at 15:29, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> I agree now this is the path to arrive there that is important to me.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> Stephane, as i said before, i do not see problems with RPackage / naming.
>>> These things are orthogonal, as to me.
>>> We can keep naming scheme as we use today, but switch to RPackage.
>>>
>>> A package can keep the list of category names and that's it. They
>>> could even be completely different, if people want it.
>>> Say, package is named
>>> Foo
>>> and contain categories:
>>> 'Foo-Core'
>>> 'Bar'
>>>
>>> The rationale is simple:
>>> it is up to human(s) to decide what a package should contain, and what
>>> names to use. Let's just embrace the imperfection and do not dictate
>>> people
>>> how they should name their categories in order to make sure that
>>> classes in that categories will be put into concrete package.
>>> If people like to confuse themselves with category names, not matching
>>> the package name , it should be their own choice and responsibility.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Igor Stasenko.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
>
>