sounds tricky. at the very least add a checker to a menu somewhere so
we can start to use it. You wouldn't need to that deeply integrate it
in the first instance...

do you need to match the existing semantics exactly? I don't think
it's good that we can get into these situations. Perhaps we should
prevent them being able to be created in the first place, rather than
deal with them once they overlap.

cheers

Mike

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have worked on the integration of the new package implementation and its 
> synchronisation with MC/PackageInfo.
> Now I have the following problem:
>
> Scenario 1:
>        the user have created a package Foo which contains several classes, 
> some like FooObject
>        in the category Foo-Core, others in category Foo-Others.
>        Now if he creates a package Foo-Core, Foo-Core should contain the 
> classes
>        having Foo-Core as category.
>
>        I have a problem with PackageInfo semantics since here packages Foo 
> and Foo-Core could contain
>        FooObject.
>
> Scenario 2:
>        the user have created a class in the category Foo-Core, and after 
> created a package only named Foo.
>        The classes in category Foo-Core should be added to Foo. But some 
> other packages and categories starting with Foo may exist.
>
>
> Now in the new implementation, classes cannot be two packages at the same 
> time. So I will be forced
> to implement a checker making sure that there is no such situation and also 
> that we should remove
> first the Foo package and then create two package Foo-Core and Foo-Others.
> What do you think?
>
> May be such a checker should be hooked into MC right now so we detect anyway 
> such bad situations.
>
> For the moment I'm fighting within events and announcements to make sure that 
> I could potentially
> keep the new implementation of Package and PackageOrganizer in sync with 
> PackageInfo but this is not that simple.
>
> Stef
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to