On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:46 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis@mail.msen.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 03:26:13PM -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> David T. Lewis wrote:
> >>>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 see. If that's the issue I would probably argue to split up VMMaker
> (it's too big as it stands for my taste) perhaps into
> VMMaker-Translation (CCodeGen, Slang), VMMaker-Interpreter
> (ObjectMemory, Interpreter), and VMMaker-Plugins (all the plugins with
> the common ones being in VMMaker-Plugins-Common). In which case
> VMMaker-Plugins-OSProcess could live side by side with the rest of the
> VMMaker packages.

I agree that splitting up VMMaker might be be a good idea. I don't
know if this is a good time to address the issue or not (there are
some important VM projects under way, such as cog, and I don't know
if reorganizing VMMaker would help or hurt).

I'll give it some thought soon.  I'm hoping to put out a Cog release soon and will make sure to decompose it when I do.