On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Stéphane Ducasse < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys >>> >>> PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. >>> So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it >>> will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a >>> compatible interface. >>> All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only >>> serve as purpose to help temporary >>> backwards compat. >>> >>> >> I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then >> RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a >> MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and >> #allDefinedExtensionMethods >> >> > Unless we attack MCPackage at the same time > > And do what? you said in the issue tracker: "I believe that for tanker you should specify the exact package names..." Well, of course, I can do it myself (in my own code) but if every person that needs to map MCPackages to RPackage does it in their own.... I don't care if you provide #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. What I think is a must if you want to remove PackageInfo is to provide a map between MCPackage and RPackage. I other words, say I have the MCPackage 'Fuel', how do I get the list of classes and extension methods? > >> >> >> >> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Stef >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >> > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
