[Seaside] [CONFUSED]: WAKom, WAKomEncoded or WAKomEncoded 3.9 - utf8 internal encoding?

Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 18:41:17 UTC 2009

2009/3/6 Michal <michal-list at auf.net>:
>>> What happens if squeak is made to use UTF-8 internally?
>> String and Character loose all semantics.
> That's disappointing! But thanks Philippe for the quick and helpful
> answer.
>>> I'm starting a clean slate seaside server, so I'd like to pick the
>>> optimal configuration...
>> What do you want to optimize for?
> I was hoping for a clean utf-8 image, and hence to be able to get rid
> of "historical cruft" (anything related to macroman and iso-8859-1)
> and at the same time gain some speed (no conversion needed on input /
> output while preserving #findString: , #copyFrom:to: and friends).

In this case I would go for utf-8 as an external encoding and use
WAKomEncoded. That will give you at least better semantics.

You'll likely loose some speed but if you're lucky it won't be a
bottleneck and you won't notice it. You'll gain other historical cruft
(leadingChar). You might run into some WideString bugs. Some of them
have been fixed in Squeak 3.10 and likely will be fixed in Pharo as
well [1]. Should you chose to run Squeak 3.10 be aware that Seaside on
Squeak 3.10 doesn't receive the same developer attention and testing
as Seaside on Squeak 3.9 and Pharo so there might be hidden Seaside
bugs there.

Wow that was quite a reassuring post ;-)

 [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=524


More information about the seaside mailing list