At 4:08 AM -0500 11/8/99, Craig Latta wrote:

>	First, I'd like to announce the availability of Correspondents release
>one beta one. This version's primitives are packaged as a plugin (still for
>win32). Under development are primitives for Macintosh/OpenTransport,
>Linux, and Acorn (I'm doing the last two; I haven't roped Tim into it yet
>:). That'll be version two. I'm also working on a detailed comparison with
>the current networking framework.

WooHoo! This is great (IMHO) news.

[snip]
>	I don't know that per se. However, various members of the group have
>said on a few occasions that they consider the current networking support
>sufficient and that further development is a low priority. :|

It's not for me! Uh, well, it's very *important* (priorities and importance
can diverge). There is a Squeak Central project for 1) doing the minimal to
fix the broken socket stuff and 2) larger refactorings. But you know that :)

>> As it seems you have implemented a new Streaming framework
>> which is simply "better" than the existing stuff - has SC said
>> anything about incorporating it in Squeak?
>
>	No. I think my previous paragraph applies here as well.

I do have a concern, really two: 1) The streaming framework is rather a
radical refactoring and, if adopted, would eventually require updating
large chunks of the system, yes? Or maintaining the old streaming framework
as well. 2) And its rather different that the Blue Book classes yes? So
really good docs would be required, porting becomes harder, etc.

(Please correct me if this is based on a misapprehension.)

[snip]

>> Can Correspondents easily be adapted to the official
>> exception framework?
>
>	It would be straightforward, but also a significant amount of...
>tedious... work. Ah, restraint. :)

But might be worth it anyway for portability to other Smalltalks?

>> Is there, in your own opinion, any arguments for NOT including
>> Correspondents in official Squeak?
>
>	No, but I disagree with Squeak Central about the fitness of the current
>system.

I'll reiterate the compatibility bit, just to raise it. Although I believe
Comanche (the new web server) is easily Correspondentable.

Correspondents is a fairly big system, and it brings in two other new
systems (streaming and an exceptions package). While ultimately, I would
hope, a gain, it's very hard to get a clear picture of it's advantages
(espeically in comparasion the older stuff, and other, not yet extant,
approaches). So I look forward to your comparisons!

For me, one fairly large concern with a Squeak networking system is
reliability, performace, and scalability (the filestream classes get in
here for typical applications). Right now, it's *impossible* to write a web
server/web application that can handle multiple simlultanous requests (at
least, on the mac). *That's* intolorable. But it's *still* a hard sell if
Squeak can't *well* handle the demands that something like (at least,
earlier versions of) WebStar could handle, at least *in principle*. And
24x7 decent performance for small to medium sized websites should be a no
brainer, at least for simple stuff (static page serving). Add that in an
ideal world (;)) the same image might also be running a ftp server, or a
mail server, or be used as a client by someone, and things get a bit messy.
(Note: I don't think that a single Squeak instance *need* handle such a
heavy load easily, as a matter of course. But the degredation should be
graceful. In point of fact, many people will use it this way. Well, so *I*
think. I certainly do! :))

(I'll note that there's a fairly new tech note about optimizing OT server
performance:  http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1059.html)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.