2009/2/10 David Röthlisberger <[email protected]>: > Igor Stasenko schrieb: >> 2009/2/10 David Röthlisberger <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> But again, there is no excuse in doing this each time you need a tree. >>>> Thanks to system notifier we have a ways to determine when category >>>> tree needs to be rebuilt, so it can be built once and stay cached >>>> until user add/remove/rename category. >>> yes, right. Packages are cached for a long time and also their classes and >>> extended >>> classes. And now also the class cats per package, which is a small share >>> though. >>> But it's good to cache iy anyway. >>> >> >> Also, note, that you need only one instance of such tree in image . >> You don't have to build this tree over and over again for each browser >> window on screen :) > > In a way, yes. > But then OB would basically do what the system itself should do, namely > modeling > packages. I would rather invest in a genuine package model in the system > itself than > let OB build its own persistent package model. A browser should by definition > browse > an existing model and not primarily create, maintain, and make persistently > accessible a system's model. This would be like a shadow model to what the > system > otherwise uses, Sounds odd to me, although from a performance point of view > it would > make sense. >
Well, OB using own tree of meta-nodes (OBXXXXNode & subclasses) to model different data structures and they relations. Should we expect from squeak/pharo to use same model? I think no. So, even if some day we will have categories as first class objects in system, you still will need to map them to own objects. > David > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
