2009/2/10 David Röthlisberger <squeak@webcitas.ch>:
Igor Stasenko schrieb:
2009/2/10 David Röthlisberger <squeak@webcitas.ch>:
But again, there is no excuse in doing this each time you need a tree. Thanks to system notifier we have a ways to determine when category tree needs to be rebuilt, so it can be built once and stay cached until user add/remove/rename category. yes, right. Packages are cached for a long time and also their classes and extended classes. And now also the class cats per package, which is a small share though. But it's good to cache iy anyway.
Also, note, that you need only one instance of such tree in image . You don't have to build this tree over and over again for each browser window on screen :)
In a way, yes. But then OB would basically do what the system itself should do, namely modeling packages. I would rather invest in a genuine package model in the system itself than let OB build its own persistent package model. A browser should by definition browse an existing model and not primarily create, maintain, and make persistently accessible a system's model. This would be like a shadow model to what the system otherwise uses, Sounds odd to me, although from a performance point of view it would make sense.
Well, OB using own tree of meta-nodes (OBXXXXNode & subclasses) to model different data structures and they relations. Should we expect from squeak/pharo to use same model? I think no. So, even if some day we will have categories as first class objects in system, you still will need to map them to own objects.
David
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.