Marcus Denker-4 wrote > Right now we do not have yet Package comments. > > But we should! > > MBInfo seems to be a private class of Versionner… > > For package comments we first need to evaluate the design space… > e.g. where to store it in the image, how to store it in Monticello…
OK - Makes sense. >From my perspective, the key to getting this of the ground is to make sure such comments can be written and read in Nautilus. The package objects used in Nautilus are from "RPackage". Thus, the problem, in my view reduces to: a) How to make room in RPackage for a comment field (add one more IV) b) How to integrate the storage of this field in connection with Monticello as Marcus writes. Re b) It does seem that there several tools whihc make use of RPackage, Monicello is not one of them. There is a test suite RPackageMCSynchronisationTest (and subclasses) which deal with synchronizing RPackages and Monticello. In the MCMczWriter there is a method serializePackage: which should be able to store the comment, and similarly, loadpackage should be able to redo it. In essence extending the "package" member of a mcz file (a json structure) with an extra dictionary element. In addition, the RPackage<->MCPackage sync need to be extended to cover this extra field. I believe I will set some of my time aside to playing around with that idea unless someone tells me this is all very wrong and/or a waste of time. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Package-comments-tp4824353p4824636.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
