30 Mar
2010
30 Mar
'10
1:15 p.m.
Hi Simon,
I was thinking of that as well, but the problem will still remain in
that SmallDude might want one version of the configuration, and the
Suite another one. Or?
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2010, at 12:52, Simon Denier wrote:
On 30 mars 2010, at 10:40, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
Hi Simon,
Hmm, but then I am not sure I understand how it could be done
better. The goal of the Configuration is to allow one to load the
code stand alone. So, SmallDude extends FAMIX and Group, so it
needs Famix-Core and Moose-Core.
Maybe we should rethink packaging? How would you do it?
I think the problem is that ConfigurationOfMoose plays two roles:
managing the common parts of Moose and defining the Moose suite as
common parts + projects. Maybe we should make this distinction clear
with a ConfigurationOfMoose and ConfigurationOfMooseSuite?
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2010, at 00:10, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev I just noticed that ConfigOfSmallDude declares an
explicit
dependency on two packages, Moose-Core and Famix-Core. I don't
think it's good practice, as it could lead to conflict between a
version of Moose and a version of SmallDude requiring different
package versions.
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know
her."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev