On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6 April 2012 16:53, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
> BasicClassOrganizer has no users...� Is it there for any purpose?
>
> What about joining them?
>

Ehh... i was also looked at those classes couple years ago and
wondered why if its really worth
having so complex implementation to save few bytes of space..

I would rewrite this stuff and leave just a Categorizer with clean
protocol and structure:

�

yes

�- categorizer holds categories (order could be important, but i would
just keep it unspecified , i.e,

yes.� I was working in a simple version having #sort:, #sortAlphabetically, #sortByAmmountOfElements
�

instead
�OrderedCollection ( categoryName -> {.. category items .. } )

I would use Dictionary
#categoryName -> Set(items)

I'd like having a Category object there.
�

this class should serve basic operations like adding /removing and queries:
�- what is a categor(ies) of element (if element can be include only
into single category at once)
�- what are category names
�- what are elements of specific category..
Period.
And it actually can serve as a general categorizer (not just for
classes/packages).

but then we have to put the changes announcements/notifications in another place
�

The way how �BasicClassOrganizer using inheritance is abuse..
since it extends a clean concept (Categorizer) with unrelated stuff,
like classComment and commentStamp.

Ok, you are making me open an issue to move those to class :). 1.5?

�

Class organizer, should instead delegate, �or even better, Class
should use two different fields for categories and class comment..
but not mixing everything into one pile of mess.

> Guille

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.