Running Magma across different Squeak versions
goran at krampe.se
goran at krampe.se
Sat Sep 1 10:43:11 UTC 2007
"Chris Muller" <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> Magma has enjoyed its wonderful compatibility and ease of migration
> thanks to staying mostly above the meta-layer. But you can see that
> by introducing these to the protocol in this way, we have already
> broken compatibility with 3.7 and 3.8, which do not include
> MethodProperties.
Ehm, did you just say that Magma doesn't work with 3.8?
Gjallar has been focused on 3.8 since we use quite a whole big bunch of
libraries and 3.8 felt like the most stable and spread platform. I
haven't investigated jumping ahead to 3.9, it may be doable.
[SNIP]
> If you are still with me, thank you. The point of all this is I would
> like to know how others feel about:
>
> 1) 3.7 compatibiltiiy at all
Not interesting for us/me. At this point in time I feel that 3.8 is the
oldest still important platform. But that is just me.
> 2) mixing 3.8 and >3.8 images
Doesn't sound that useful - and definitely not for Gjallar.
> 3) the desire to use Blocks, CompiledMethods or Processes in your persistent model
Blocks could be useful - but currently we don't. I have a hard time
seeing the others being used - CompiledMethod could be interesting if
Magma was to be used for storing precompiled code in some SCM solution
or such.
> 4) the risks of adding all those honkin' classes above to the
> protocol just to support executeInServer:.
Well, we need those darn numbers. :) Or rather - we need the illusion of
a very large OrderedCollection that can be added to from multiple
sessions. Of course interested in hearing about alternatives.
> Thanks..
regards, Göran
More information about the Magma
mailing list