Masterview devel - Oct 2006 - Some code org issues

Jeff - I went in this morning to take a look at knocking off one more to-do
item before we release and it''s turned up a couple interesting issues.

Recall that we''d kind of agreed that introducing a module namespace
structure onto the MIO classes would probably be a good idea.  And indeed
when I go in and try out introducing a MasterView::IO layer in io.rb I think
it''s bit better - the rdoc is clearer, shifts a lot of things out of
the top
level of the MasterView namespace which are primarily mechanism classes.

Discoveries:

- I think we don''t need InvalidArgumentError that''s declared
in io.rb - just
use ArgumentError from the standard library [not sure this is used in any
case]

- it turns out we''ve got two declararations of InvalidPathError -
oops!! You
used in io.rb and then I recently invented an equivalent guy as part of
directive_load_path.  Need to reconcile this, I''ll look at it further.

Related: I''d like to shift masterview/pathname_extensions.rb into
masterview/core_ext/pathname.rb - that dir structure follows the pattern I
see in rails and I think is a better way to organize the files, makes it
very clear where we''ve got stuff that affects existing platform
elements vs.
what''s really our own, new stuff.

[and maybe at some point tease the methods that we patch into rails classes
into an explicit masterview/rails_ext directory, although I don''t mind
deferring that until later; pathname was easy to spot and shift because you
already set it up cleanly in the first place]

But... this''ll take at least few hours to go over, retest, etc.  Should
we
do this now?  I would rather like to get our namespace juggling settled in
this release if possible, given that we did some similar changes elsewhere
(parser), so that we don''t have continuing churn in the namespace
structure.

~ Deb

On 10/28/06, Deb Lewis <djlewis at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Jeff - I went in this morning to take a look at knocking off one more
> to-do
> item before we release and it''s turned up a couple interesting
issues.
>
> Recall that we''d kind of agreed that introducing a module
namespace
> structure onto the MIO classes would probably be a good idea.  And indeed
> when I go in and try out introducing a MasterView::IO layer in io.rb I
> think
> it''s bit better - the rdoc is clearer, shifts a lot of things out
of the
> top
> level of the MasterView namespace which are primarily mechanism classes.
>
> Discoveries:
>
> - I think we don''t need InvalidArgumentError that''s
declared in io.rb -
> just
> use ArgumentError from the standard library [not sure this is used in any
> case]


ok


- it turns out we''ve got two declararations of InvalidPathError -
oops!! You
> used in io.rb and then I recently invented an equivalent guy as part of
> directive_load_path.  Need to reconcile this, I''ll look at it
further.


agreed. let me know if you need my help in resolving.


Related: I''d like to shift masterview/pathname_extensions.rb
into
> masterview/core_ext/pathname.rb - that dir structure follows the pattern I
> see in rails and I think is a better way to organize the files, makes it
> very clear where we''ve got stuff that affects existing platform
elements
> vs.
> what''s really our own, new stuff.


yes, that sounds like a good reorg

[and maybe at some point tease the methods that we patch into rails
classes
> into an explicit masterview/rails_ext directory, although I don''t
mind
> deferring that until later; pathname was easy to spot and shift because
> you
> already set it up cleanly in the first place]


I agree it would be good to do now rather than waiting since this is a big
release anyway


But... this''ll take at least few hours to go over, retest, etc.  Should
we
> do this now?  I would rather like to get our namespace juggling settled in
> this release if possible, given that we did some similar changes elsewhere
> (parser), so that we don''t have continuing churn in the namespace
> structure.


I am fine with us taking the time to do it now. I am just about finished
with the missing xml declaration and doctype. Should be commiting within the
next half hour, though I don''t know that it will conflict with anything
you
are mentioning anyway.

I will be working more on the release notes after that commit.

I think all these changes you mentioned are good and should go into this
release so we''ll just hold off until it is ready. Depending on your
availability for the changes you mentioned, its possible that we can still
get it in this weekend anyway, but not a huge deal if it needs to wait. As
long as we are moving forwards we''ll get there :-)

Thanks. Keep me posted of your progress and I''ll do the same.

Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20061028/980daa30/attachment-0001.html

Jeff - right then, let''s proceed.  I started on the namespace changes
this
morning and then backed off to see if you agreed it was worth doing now;
I''ll finish it in the morning after synching to pick up your changes.
 
RE: InvalidPathError - I think we should keep InvalidPathError exception
declared at the top level (MasterView::InvalidPathError), since this is
properly exposed to clients.  I''ll keep IO using that and tweak the
directive-path variation accordingly (might subclass to carry extra parm
value that current impl provides with the actual path entry, but that''s
pretty minor either way I think).
 
RE: just about finished with the missing xml declaration and doctype - good,
that''s important to handle
 
~ Deb

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20061028/9fbb3beb/attachment.html