Re: Envy or Store or what?

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Göran Hultgren wrote:

> What about that btw - what is your reasoning about having one file per package
> (instead of say one file per class)? It sort of "defeats" interesting 
> properties
> in CVS I think.

But having one file per class defeats some nice properties of changesets -
they impose an order on loading in classes (so you don't define a subclass
before its superclass), they are easy to distribute and install, Squeak
automatically deals with them even when compressed, etc.

Having too many files also makes CVS unwieldy - you always have to be
doing adds and removes, revision numbers are on the class and not the
entire package, and so on.  And the major advantage - that conflicts are
kept low - is taken care of fairly well by the order in which DVS files
things out.

However, if sqcvs integration was done (so that adds and removes could be
done automatically), and using .sar as a packaging format (and generating
an install script that loaded everything in the right order), then it
might make sense to finish working on the DirectoryPackageDumper, which
files out each method and class definition as a separate file.

> And another thing, what do you think about the "decisions about how we proceed
> with modules" I have been trying to get people buzzing about?

Well, I'm personally going to continue making 3.2 the best (as defined by
"most useful to me") environment I can, without worrying for a moment
about duplicating functionality that may or may not exist in 3.3a.  Either
everyone else will make roughly the same decision, or they won't.

Avi