Re: [Pharo-project] [review needed] Do we remove SmartRefStream?
On May 12, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On May 11, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
With Fuel, we should take the opportunity to clean up the systm. There are things we need to keep for a while (DataStream, for example, a it is used by Monticello).
But what about SmartRefStream? With ImageSegment already gone, does it make sense to keep it? The code looks horrible.
One can just remove it and all remaining users like this:
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5859
Can we do that? do we need to formally deprecate it?
would be good even if so boring⦠:)
I have an idea: I will integrate the removal change. But as soon as somone who is not me adds a tracker entry with a Slice that has a nicely deprecated version of SmartRefStream, I will directly add it. This is kind "removal inversion": normally keeping something is the cheap and easy option. Removing is hard. In this case, we invert: remvove, but *if* for somebody the "keep" option is important enough to spend *a trivial amoung of work on*, we do it. ;-) Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On May 12, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On May 11, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
With Fuel, we should take the opportunity to clean up the systm. There
are things we need to keep
for a while (DataStream, for example, a it is used by Monticello).
But what about SmartRefStream? With ImageSegment already gone, does it make sense to keep it? The code looks horrible.
One can just remove it and all remaining users like this:
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5859
Can we do that? do we need to formally deprecate it?
would be good even if so boring⦠:)
I have an idea: I will integrate the removal change. But as soon as somone who is not me adds a tracker entry with a Slice that has a nicely deprecated version of SmartRefStream, I will directly add it.
This is kind "removal inversion": normally keeping something is the cheap and easy option. Removing is hard. In this case, we invert: remvove, but *if* for somebody the "keep" option is important enough to spend *a trivial amoung of work on*, we do it.
Marcus, I wanted to do the check, but I am really busy fixing some stuff for Fuel for the PharoConf presentation. As soon as I have some time, I plan to do a pass on it.
;-)
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
participants (2)
-
Marcus Denker -
Mariano Martinez Peck