Bill
�
2009/9/4 Miguel Enrique Cob� Martinez
<miguel.coba@gmail.com>
El
vie, 04-09-2009 a las 09:33 +1200, Michael van der Gulik escribi�:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, St�phane
Ducasse
> <
stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
wrote:
> � � � � - Issue 1144: � Many
occurrences of "ReadStream on:
> � � � �
aCollection" which
> � � � � can be replaced with
"aCollection readStream"
>
>
> For what it's worth, I prefer
the style of "ReadStream on: xxx". I
> prefer to choose the stream class
rather than let the collection
> choose it for
me.
But don't you always have the option to call ReadStream
on: object,
even though object class has a readStream
method?
In Pharo, sure.
However, in
SecureSqueak, there won't be >>readStream methods. I'll spare the details
because I hate multi-page emails. Ask me if you're
interested.
�
2009/9/4 Schwab,Wilhelm K
<bschwab@anest.ufl.edu>
Ok, I'm interested :)� Is there a
security argument?� Off the top, it does not sound like something I would
want to use.� If you can make a case that #readStream is dangerous, I'm all
ears.� If it is simply that it closes off modifications to the base
classes, it is probably too restictive for my tastes.� Locking it down
**after** I add the missing methods and deploy on� a server, that's another
matter.� But then, there would be #readStream
methods...
�
Excuse the funny formatting. GMail sometimes doesn't cooperate. Also, this is getting a bit off topic on the Pharo list.
No, it's not really to do with security. It's to do with this package system I invented.
Basically, I want to reduce package dependencies. Putting >>readStream in kernel classes would make a package dependency between the Collection package and the Stream package. If the Collections package was loaded into SecureSqueak, the package architecture would be forced to load the Stream package as well even if it isn't used. If your own package depended on both Collection and a different Streams package, anybody who loaded your code would need to load two Streams packages.
There's no reason that >>readStream couldn't be included in a Collections package, provided that it's not in the Collections package provided with the SecureSqueak Kernel. I want the Kernel package to have as few dependencies as possible. Packages are read-only in SecureSqueak and the Kernel package contains special objects, meaning that Kernel and its dependencies can not be upgraded without distributing a new image. Collections would be a non-upgradable dependency of Kernel, so I'd be trying hard to not also make Streams also a non-upgradable dependency.
More info:
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/Namespaceshttp://gulik.pbwiki.com/PackagesGulik.