> On 05 May 2015, at 17:14, Kasper Osterbye <kas...@itu.dk> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
But there is a one-to-one mapping between MCPackage and RPackage… we
need to take care to keep Monticello compatible.
(Else it would be so nice if MC would share the model with everyone else.. it
models,
yet again, classe, methods, packages…)
> 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.
>
Yes. Due to backward compatibility, we need to make sure to not save it in the
MC model
itself but as an additional entity in the zip file, that then other smalltalk
can ignore.
Marcus
