<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Dan, I had no reason to limit the conversation
to you, just an email error.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In way of explanation on my question
I have a product which is a single image consisting of 50 or</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">so applications. Each application
is built from 'modules' which are groups of behavior managed by an individual.
Updates</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">are performed by 'patches' which
are autoloaded at image startup and are created by whoever discovers the
problem.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Some requirements were for distributed
autonomous development. kibitzing of others code and a desire by our users
to never</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">have a bad experience due to upgrades.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">While this was a good approach when
we were developing code now that we are in an incremental enhancement mode
we are finding that</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">keeping the applications running while
updating the modules is becoming a pain. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">After looking at our options I am pursuing
the concept that each application is its own image, modules namespace and
patches thus moving away</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">from the single image approach. Of
course to make this work I need to keep the nice parts of a common image
such as object</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">communications between applications
and sharing of the cpu.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">With this in mind I have some interest
in your idea to have multiple projects ( similar to our applications )
in a single image. This</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">appears to have some of the characteristics
that I am looking for but it seems like the separate image approach offers
a cleaner</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">separation.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Do you have any thoughts on the relative
merits of the separate projects in a single image vs the independent project
per image approach?</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">mark</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Dan Ingalls <Dan@SqueakLand.org></b>
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/01/2005 12:46 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Mark Roos <mroos@roos.com></font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: Getting Ready</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Dan stated.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Now imagine that the VM can have multiple method caches,
one per, um, per process? per module? Think about it. And
when you have figured it out, note that this system could run simultaneous
multiple projects with conflicting changes to root classes with no performance
degradation.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2>How do you envision this being different, or better, than
several independent Squeak processes with some form of tight message based
communications and a good scheduler?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Hi Mark -</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>I'm not sure what you're proposing as the thing to compare
against.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>In Squeak there is no current way to have conflicting
changes to root classes. Can you spell out a bit more what you mean
by the above one-liner?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2>p.s. I am liking a lot the idea of using the cache to
handle overrides</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Me, too. We've already got most of the mechanism,
and putting a level of indirection on it offers a lot of leverage.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3> - Dan</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>By the way, it's fine with me if you'd like to include
the list on this. It's also fine to keep it offline. Just wanted
you to know.</font>
<br>