The problem is how do we handle packages when people do not use nautilus Stef
On Mar 19, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 19 March 2011 15:53, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 19 March 2011 08:11, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is this a conscious decision to have an unique package per each >>>> category name, or just a technical limitation? >>> >>> RPAckage has nothing to do with category matching: a package is a list of >>> classes and methods. >>> >>> Now the problem is simply the following: >>> >>> you have a MC package FOO >>> it contains FOO-Cat1 >>> >>> you load it: ok the loader could create >>> RPAckage Foo >>> and put FOO classes and Foo-Cat Classes in it >>> >>> Now you create a new category >>> FOO-z what should I do >>> add it to FOO >>> create a package Foo-z >>> >>> We would like to get rid of the naming convention and matching on >>> categories now we could have tags >>> but tags should orthogonal to packages. >>> >> No. The process should be different: >> >> You marking an active package (in same way as currently we having an >> active changeset). >> Then anything you do (any classes or methods you creating) is going >> straightly to that package. >> >> Now, what to do if you hacking around or do refactoring over multiple >> classes in multiple packages: >> - you can say that for the time of your hacking session a methods you >> changing/adding should belong to same packages >> as their classes (instead of adding methods to single active package >> as extensions). >> This should be default behavior. >> > > Or, since you doing new environment-tied browser, > you can say to single browser instance: please stick with this > package, and for another instance - stick with another. > Then anything you do in browser goes to these package(s). > >>> >>>> I'd prefer to have a package which can allow an arbitrary category >>>> names in future. It may be that tools like browser are not prepared >>>> for that.. >>>> but not an internal information of package. To my thinking , classes >>>> which belong to package could have any category names.. >>>> Names should not mean anything.. it is just for humans. >>>> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >
