[Pharo-project] Plugin organization

Michael Rueger m.rueger at acm.org
Fri Jan 30 08:05:33 EST 2009


bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk wrote:

> But Monticello packages are just a naming scheme.

yes and no. A package is defined using the name and string matching, but 
a package is a package.

> Your statement: "That would also allow to simply load all plugins into
> a VMMaker image by using a package 'Plugin'.". Seems to indicate to
> me that using the naming convention you suggested would lead to
> all the packages being part of a single Monticello package.

Hmm, yes and no again ;-)
But I now I see what you are saying...

Being able to load all plugin packages by defining a "meta" package 
"Plugin" exploits the string matching nature of Monticello. This "meta" 
package would be simply a convenience for loading, it should not, or 
rather must not, be stored, ever.

Anyways, my proposal was really more about a naming convention for 
Plugin packages.

The same convention could also be applied to test packages btw to avoid 
all this very "creative" naming, patching the "test" somewhere into the 
category name.

Michael




More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list