Re: re: Flow integration

Craig Latta <[email protected]> said:
>1.	Change some of the original class names ("Stream" becomes
>"OldStream", etc.)

Without my giving any qualification whatsoever on the qualities of Flow, I
think I have to agree with Andreas. Why not leave Stream and introduce a
FlowStream (or FlwStream, whatever)? People can then have both in the image
and the market can decide whether Flow is really better. In a year or so, when
Flow has proven itself, you can then remove the old code from the image; and
when Squeak finally has namespacing, you can remove these ugly prefixes. 

Talking to the outside world is one of the most important things; with all the
great Squeak software that I see lying around but that only works under 2.x, I
think that going through great lengths to provide compatibility for old code
is extremely important. If that means that the new stuff has to revert to
not-so-nice class names (b/c that is basically the only real issue here, if I
understood it right), I think that's the way to go. 

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <[email protected]>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo