Class layout refactory

[Otavio Salvador]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=

|| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:14:15 +0200
|| Free Ekanayaka <free78@tin.it> wrote: 
OS> We all think we should processed at this?

fe> If we  want to have separate  classes for  binary and sources packages
fe> I'd name them:

fe> BinaryPackage
fe> SourcePackage

fe> rather then:

fe> Package
fe> SourcePackage

Apt and policy call it in this way. We have a Binary Package, called
Package and a Source Package.

fe> However I'm wondering whether  it would be  possible to have  only one
fe> single class called Package that transparently handle both of
fe> them.

I think this is possible since we don't have the Files field in
Packages file.

fe> About the PackageSource   class  issue I'm  wondering  whether  if you
fe> really need such a class.

fe> Basically a RemoteBackend is defined specifying server, architectures,
fe> distributions, components  and filters/includes/excludes.

fe> So I'd simply write some methods for the RemoteBackend class:

PackageSource is a try to have a generic class to implement the common
code between Remote and Local handle.

Backend class does the same in Backends world. Did you looked at
HACKING file to see what we proposed?

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFBBlHCLqiZQEml+FURAmIjAJ4yKdvGFzWk3QxRjIRaupJus664UgCgjXAd
J87xLrefWC5qTWIvujEIsRs=
=p+Ed
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--