[Release] Re: [Seaside] Monticello 2

[Matthew Fulmer]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:01:49PM +0100, Lukas Renggli wrote:
> Then I added, that I do not suggest to port Monticello 1 now, because
> Monticello 1 was not designed with portability in mind and probably
> very hard to integrate into different platforms. Monticello 2 is
> designed to support different platforms.

I don't know why you say this, so let's examine what is required
to port Monticello 1, and compare it to Monticello 2.

Reading a package:
- Monticello 1:
  - Reading a zip: probably available
  - Reading the snapshot.st file: Contained within Monticello;
    portable
  - Reading the snapshot.bin file: Requires a port of
    DataStream.  Not so easy
  - Reading the other files: contained within Monticello;
    portable
- Monticello 2:
  - ?

Loading a package:
- Monticello 1:
  - Provide a loader for each MCDefinition type
- Monticello 2:
  - Provide a loader for each MDVersion type

Snapshotting a package:
- Monticello 1:
  - Create a PackageInfo that can scan this system
- Monticello 2:
  - Create a Slice that can scan this system

Saving a package:
- Same portability status as Reading a package

Other portability issues, shared by MC 1 and 2:
- Traits are specific to Squeak
- Namespaces are specific to VisualWorks


All in all, I don't see a huge difference between the
theoretical portability of MC1 and 2. I'd need to know more
about the format of MC2 packages though

I'm curious why you say this. Please explain.

-- 
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/