>> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by >> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is >> feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo >> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. >> > incremental? > do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or > 'remotely connected database-based file system' > by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? > good luck with such 'increments' :)
Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring work and little disruption to the API. That's the promise object technology, encapsulation. Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt about it. If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once the conversion is done. I just think its worth asking, though, whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich model of a FileSystem. Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one? Maybe Spoon will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..?
