Hi avi
While I agree on your analysis of our intuition with SCN, I disagree with your conclusion. My impression is that if you consider package as first class category, then package changes should be using SCN and seaside and connector should not. Because soon we will want to have package changes, package list in changesorter.. I think that packages are about code entities and we designed SCN with that vision in mind (package, traits...) should use it else this will be the mess later.
Stef
On 26 févr. 05, at 22:57, Avi Bryant wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:27:33 +0100, Alexandre Bergel bergel@iam.unibe.ch wrote:
Hello!
I was wondering what is the impact of adding packages on the system change notification mechanism. I added some events for creating a new package, renaming one, deleting move, moving one method from one packate to another, ...
What about adding a new repository to a package? What about saving a package?
That's an interesting question, and I guess is really a more general one: is the SystemChangeNotification a central registry that any addon package for Squeak could/should add new event types to? For example, a NewConnectorsDrawingEvent, or a SeasideApplicationCreated event, and so on.
My general feeling is that we don't need this - the main strength of SCN is maybe not so much in the architecture for sending and registering events, but in all the hooks that have been put into the system for sending the events at the right time, and in the particular events hierarchy that's been designed for code changes. For unrelated events (and I think package/repository changes are arguably unrelated to the current SCN events), the basic #when:send:to: etc events should be enough, no?
Avi