On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi guys
PackageInfo has a large APi that is often not used. So I would suggest that we reduce the PackageInfo API first because it will lower the stress on RPackage to be offer a compatible interface. All the methods in the compatibility should somehow disappear or only serve as purpose to help temporary backwards compat.
I agree. But if you want to remove in the future PackageInfo, then RPackage HAS to provide a way to get the classes/extension methods of a MCPackage. That's why I need #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods
Unless we attack MCPackage at the same time
And do what? you said in the issue tracker: "I believe that for tanker you should specify the exact package names..." Well, of course, I can do it myself (in my own code) but if every person that needs to map MCPackages to RPackage does it in their own.... I don't care if you provide #allDefinedClasses and #allDefinedExtensionMethods. What I think is a must if you want to remove PackageInfo is to provide a map between MCPackage and RPackage. I other words, say I have the MCPackage 'Fuel', how do I get the list of classes and extension methods?
What do you think?
Stef
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com