On Mar 19, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> Stef, >> >> I would say that trying to diverge from category-based packaging for MC1 >> would pretty much be a disaster. the big problem is not what happens within >> Pharo (which is a tough enough problem to solve), but what happens to other >> folks (Squeak or GemStone or even VW in this case) trying to use mcz files >> created in Pharo that no longer align with the class and method categories? >> It will not be pretty. > > No this is not a problem, because we can save the package with the * > notation and category even if we do not need that. ........... > > Now what other system like gemstone could do is also to copy the pharo > package implementation because these are two classes.
Stef, Over the long haul I would agree that migration to the newer model is a good idea and gemstone could install the code (when tool support becomes available in GemStone) and as long as there is a transition period where RPackage isn't _required_, then I think that things can work smoothly... Dale
