On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > > > What Mariano means is that you can have MCPackage(X) containing > categories X-A, X-B, X-C. When that package is loaded today, three > RPackages are created: X-A, X-B, X-C. So RPackages are more mapped from > categories that from MCPackages. > > we decided that it will be one package with classes having corresponding > tags. > But we should do it. > Again nothing should be mapped from MCPackages (MCPackages should not be > used it is an internal class of MC). > Ok, let me clarify something. First, let's decide where we discuss. Ok, here, not in the issue tracker. There you said: "You should not rely on MC layer for fuel.". First, it is not Fuel, it is Tanker. Second, the only think Tanker relies on is in a user-provided set of classes and extension methods. However, there is a separate package that helps using Tanker from RPackage or PackageInfo. Right now, if you have MCPackage X, and then categories X-A, X-B and X-C, then you have 3 RPackages. That's why I was talking about a "MCPackage mapping". If in the future, this is one RPackage then perfect. What I need to do is to have a RPackage for X where I ask classes and extension methods and it answers me also the included by its categories (X-A, X-B and X-C). To have that, is why I am using now #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. > > > > > > 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 > > > > Mariano if RPackage represents a MCPackage then RPackage offers all the > correct queries to get the classes extended, method extensions and so > > let me know if you do not see it because I payed extreme attention to > that. > > > > RPackage>>defineMethodsForClass: > > definedSelectorForClass: > > extendedClassames > > extendedClasses > > extensionMethods > > extensionMethodsForClass: > > extensionSelectors > > extensionSelectorsForClass: > > methodsForClass: > > selectorsForClass: > > > > Let me repeat it. We do not need the compatibility layer. > > Now it may be that (since rpackage was pushed fast in the image) that > the importer from PackageInfo to Rpackage did not cover all the cases > > but this is clearly another issue. > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Stef > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
