[Release] Re: [Seaside] Monticello 2

Matthew Fulmer tapplek at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 21:11:40 UTC 2008

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;
  - Reading the snapshot.bin file: Requires a port of
    DataStream.  Not so easy
  - Reading the other files: contained within Monticello;
- 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/

More information about the seaside mailing list