Hi Thierry, Just some thoughts I wanted to share:
Le 3 févr. 2016 à 10:18, Thierry Goubier a écrit : > I went through all the different possible file formats, class-based, > package-based, method-based, log metadata and the like, and I concluded that: > > - the method based format is as good as any other. Even better since it has a > spec (cypress). I see cons that a class (or package) format would not have. One file per method approach leads to generate plenty of small files. In general, file systems do not like that: - it may consumes a lot of space. I remember I had a Java/maven project with a lot of small files and I got to fill the inodes tables on my unix system. - you generate long pathes. Long pathes are not user-friendly and some OS have restrictions on path length. By adopting a file per method approach, you also increase the distance to get a common script format for Smalltalk. Here I mean a file where you could define classes, methods, and run arbitrary portions of Smalltalk code. > - method based format allow for method-history queries on the git/vcs history > (as well as class based / package based queries). > - the tree structure on github or bitbucket is quite convenient (and > browsable) to the point one could edit a package directly in it (I do when I > need to do a quick fix). but is a pain to navigate: too much click to effectively browse a method content. I do not know what would be the best format but I think we need to take care to do not generate too much files / folders. File system and VCS will appreciate also. Cheers, Christophe
