[Moose-dev] Re: Moose becomes modular...

[Simon Denier]

On 17 févr. 2010, at 15:09, Laval Jannik wrote:

> For sure, I can :),
> But maybe you want a dsm to see cycles ?
> 
> To do simple, isAbstract is defined in Famix-Core, but all other isSomething are defined in FamixExtensions.
> It seems to be correct to move it with other test methods.

yeah, but why does isAbstract create a cycle?

> 
> For the ret, maybe we could do this:
> 
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.definedMethods() in Famix-Extensions.
> it is an alias of self methods, it should be in Famix-Implementations
> 
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.localClasses() in Famix-Extensions.
> it is an alias of self classes, it should be in Famix-Implementations
> 
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.extendedClasses() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.extendedClassesGroup() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.extensionClasses() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.extensionClassesGroup() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.extensionMethods() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.localMethods() in Famix-Extensions.
>>>> extend method>> Smalltalk::FAMIXPackage.localClassesGroup() in Famix-Extensions.
> These methods are used by Cook, which is in Famix-Extension now.
> But I will try something else.


Jannik, if we rewrite the cook queries with the Chef API, those dependencies will disappear right? And we can keep smalltalkish stuff in Famix-Smalltalk. I still find it more disturbing that Cook depends on some Smalltalk stuff, and moving this stuff in Extensions feels a bit like sweeping it under the carpet.

--
 Simon