On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:38:26AM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
David T. Lewis wrote:
Some older plugins that are maintained outside of the VMMaker package already use this package naming convention, hence:
VMConstruction-Plugins-OSProcessPlugin VMConstruction-Plugins-XDisplayControlPlugin VMConstruction-Plugins-AioPlugin
This still looks perfectly good to me, so how about just using "VMConstruction-Plugins-*" rather than "Plugins-*"?
Maybe I'm missing something but how is any of this different from VMMaker-Plugins which is the current categorization for plugins?
The classes in category VMMaker-Plugins-OSProcessPlugin would then appear as part of the VMMaker package. If someone was maintaining VMMaker with Monticello, and also had OSProcessPlugin (or whatever) in their image, they would not want OSProcessPlugin to be saved as part of the VMMaker package.
I am assuming that the plugins currently in VMMaker-Plugins will stay there unless someone someone specifically takes maintenance responsibility for them outside of their current home. I was also assuming that the original naming suggestion on the pharo list refers to plugins not currently in VMMaker (but I am not involved with pharo so I guess I'm not certain if that is the intent).
So to summarize: If someone is going to have a new package name for plugins outside of "VMMaker-*", it should not be called "Plugin-*" because the name could be misleading, and it might as well be called "VMConstruction-Plugins-*" because it is a good name that has been in use for many years for this purpose.
Just my $0.02
Dave