[Seaside] So where is the "release" version of 3.7? - while we're
on the subject
dale.henrichs at gemstone.com
Wed Feb 28 01:48:14 UTC 2007
As a matter of fact, we are getting real close to taking a serious look
at porting SqueakSource to Gemstone.
We are interested in taking an existing Seaside application and porting
it to Gemstone, to get a better feel for how hard/easy it will be and
since we are planning on having a SqueakSource site for
Gemstone-specific code, SqueakSource would be a natural choice. On top
of that I am intrigued by the idea of providing a Gemstone-based
repository for Monticello, so again SqueakSource would be the natural
application for leveraging a Gemstone-based monticello repository.
It is more likely that we will base our port on the existing set of
packages for SqueakSource, but the lessons we learn from that port can
be applied to anything done for 2.7.
Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 2007/2/27, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs at gemstone.com>:
>> Not to complicate the discussion too much, but...
>> As many of you already know, we are porting Seaside to Gemstone. As part
>> of that effort we have decided to port Monticello to Gemstone as well.
>> We want to make it easy for folks to move their applications from a
>> Squeak image to a Gemstone image and Monticello seems to be a natural
>> Of course, this adds an extra dimension to the naming issue: because of
>> platform differences, there will be some monticello packages that are
>> Gemstone specific (today _all_ monticello packages are Squeak specific).
>> The fundamental question is should the platform be encoded in the name
>> (i.e., Package_gemstone.branch-author.99) or not (implied by the
>> For example, I have a version of seaside stored in
>> Seaside2.6g-dkh.18.mcz. This version contains Squeak source and has as
>> an ancestor Seaside2.6a3-avi.73.mcz. There will be an equivalent version
>> that contains the Gemstone source.
>> After the discussion of the last few days, I assume that the squeak
>> version should be stored in a package called Seaside2.6a3-dkh.74.mcz,
>> since it contains code that is rooted in the 6a3 branch.
>> My question is what should the version of the Gemstone code be called?
>> It will be functionally equivalent to Seaside2.6a3-dkh.74.mcz, but will
>> contain Gemstone specific code.
>> BTW, we already plan on hosting a Gemstone SqueakSource site, so that we
>> don't pollute the site with gemstone-specific packages.
> Will that SqueakSource run on Gemstone by chance? You see, we are
> looking into porting SqueakSource to Seaside 2.7 (which would probably
> mean rewriting the whole UI) and the model is quite simple (only 12
> classes). Additionally we are looking for some real persistence
> solution. So if you need some kind of demo application .... ;)
>> I think that the version name should share a common branch and package
>> name with a platform designator...
>> What do you folks think?
>> Seaside mailing list
>> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Seaside