This may be a dumb question but I would like to know what it would 
     take to add the capability to not only pass objects and messages 
     between Smalltalk images but be able to pass them to images which do 
     not contain the class definitions for those objects. Basically, it 
     seems to me that it would be nice to be able to do the following:
     
     1. Pass a class definition to an image.
     2. Send that image instances of the class or ask it to instantiate 
     some and initialize them.
     3. Do something with the class and instances.
     4. Remove the class definition and instances from the image.
     
     I would like to be able to avoid the necessity of having the class 
     definitions permanently in all of the images of a distrubuted system. 
     If this can already be done, I would love to know how.
     
     Jerome
     
     jegarcia at adventurousmind.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Generic Bridges
Author:  Stephen Pope <stp at create.ucsb.edu> at INTERNET
Date:    12/9/98 7:38 PM


C. Keith Ray wrote:
> Does anyone on this mailing list have experience implementing distributed 
> objects in smalltalk?
> 
> It seems those techniques could also allow calling into specific squeak 
> objects from outside squeak.
     
I've done it several times for various dialects of Smalltalk. It's pretty 
trivial to write a simple socket-based protocol for passing objects and messages
between Smalltalk images, or between Smalltalk and C/C++. The solutions can 
range from a very lightweight packet protocol to full-blown mini-ORBs. Squeak's 
provision of simple socket I/O makes it even easier. The fact that primitives 
can signal Smalltalk semaphores makes call-ins to Smalltalk from outside a 
breeze (e.g., look at the [non-polling] MIDI input code in Siren).
     
-- 
stp
     
        Stephen Travis Pope
        stp at create.ucsb.edu -- http://www.create.ucsb.edu/~stp/