In the course of my current project, I did some work getting the image size down to something reasonable. I managed to get it down to 2.6 Mb while still containing Seaside, Commanche, YAXO and SIXX plus the MVC-based IDE.
The Big Ball o' Scripts (plus some documentation) is here:
http://www.sentex.ca/~cgreuter/downloads/MiniWeb-1.0.zip
It needs to be filed in to a pristine Squeak 3.4-5170 image to work.
The changesets for Seaside et. al. are in the zipball.
I can't vouch for its reliability except to say that I've used it (the resulting image, that is) to do development on my old laptop and haven't had any problems.
--Chris
Chris,
Any reason you chose a 3.4 image instead of some of the more recent ones?
Colin
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:21:23 -0400, Chris Reuter seaside@blit.ca wrote:
In the course of my current project, I did some work getting the image size down to something reasonable. I managed to get it down to 2.6 Mb while still containing Seaside, Commanche, YAXO and SIXX plus the MVC-based IDE.
The Big Ball o' Scripts (plus some documentation) is here:
http://www.sentex.ca/~cgreuter/downloads/MiniWeb-1.0.zipIt needs to be filed in to a pristine Squeak 3.4-5170 image to work.
The changesets for Seaside et. al. are in the zipball.
I can't vouch for its reliability except to say that I've used it (the resulting image, that is) to do development on my old laptop and haven't had any problems.
--Chris-- Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca "I pay way too much for cable, so I have to watch what's on the premium channels, even if it's not very good, or else I'm just throwing money away." --Gregory King in alt.religion.kibology _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list Seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/seaside
Chris,
Any reason you chose a 3.4 image instead of some of the more recent ones?
The main reason is that I used Jon Hylands' and Boris Gaertner's Shrink.cs as a starting point (i.e., they did the hard work and I made a few changes).
Shrinking is, it turns out, remarkably fiddly to do right. You can't just remove a class. You also have to modify every method that referenced that class or else it'll stay in the image. New versions of Squeak invariably add new references which need to be hunted down so shrink scripts are _extremely_ version-specific.
That looked too much like real work so I didn't bother, especially since 3.4 is sufficient for most things.
Actually, 3.4 is what I still use for a number of projects. Upgrading my image is enough of a pain for me that I don't do it all that often.
--Chris
I've been idly thinking about how to shink an image - and it invariably comes down to picking out what is most important in the image. For a deployment, I would pick the web application as the most important. From there, you can backtrace every dependance it has, and those have, and those have, until some point where you ditch the rest of the image.
But taking the reverse approach (top-down, like "I don't need this class") seems to be a harder situation to deal with.
Kudos to you for all your hard work!
Colin
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:25:34 -0500 (EST), Chris Reuter seaside@blit.ca wrote:
Chris,
Any reason you chose a 3.4 image instead of some of the more recent ones?
The main reason is that I used Jon Hylands' and Boris Gaertner's Shrink.cs as a starting point (i.e., they did the hard work and I made a few changes).
Shrinking is, it turns out, remarkably fiddly to do right. You can't just remove a class. You also have to modify every method that referenced that class or else it'll stay in the image. New versions of Squeak invariably add new references which need to be hunted down so shrink scripts are _extremely_ version-specific.
That looked too much like real work so I didn't bother, especially since 3.4 is sufficient for most things.
Actually, 3.4 is what I still use for a number of projects. Upgrading my image is enough of a pain for me that I don't do it all that often.
--Chris-- Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca "To make that name appear justified, [people who are determined to believe that the entire system is 'Linux'] must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills." --RMS, http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0520.rms.html _______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list Seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/seaside
seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Chris Reuter -
Colin Curtin -
seaside＠blit.ca