--On Sunday, August 19, 2001 9:50 AM -0700 Allen Wirfs-Brock 
<Allen_Wirfs-Brock at Instantiations.com> wrote:

> At 12:39 PM 8/19/2001 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> --On Saturday, August 18, 2001 9:27 PM -0400 Marcio Marchini
>> <mqm at magma.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>>         If you have a mini web server (headless) running in Squeak, I'd
>>> say the
>>> Smalltalk compiler and the Transcript support aren't really needed.
>>
>> Perhaps, but should we really optimize for the absolute minimal case?
>
> We shouldn't be optimizing for the minimal cause; however, we should be
> enabling the minimal case.

Yes.

>>> You're
>>> not compiling new code, and you can log messages to stdout or a file.
>>> So, I'd say they do not belong to a minimal kernel.
>>
>> Well, I disagree at *least* as far as the compiler. Dan *did* say "I
>> would  like to go farther with this by using the OS for the transcript,
>> so that  all this thing can really do is read in the next package."
>>
>> Two points: yes on the "Transcript to stdout or file" but also this is a
>> kernal minimal enough for bootstrapping (i.e., reading in the next
>> package).
>
> This is where it's important to make the distinction between "components"
> and "modules".  When thinking about modules, you don't have to worry
> about bootrstrapping.

Aha, yes, ok.

>  Modules get externally assembled. If you have a
> set of proto-kernel modules with orthogonal functionality you can
> assemble them into a variety of actual kernels that support different
> usages. Some of those kernels wound support dynamic component binding
> (hence booting strapping) while others might only support complete,
> self-contained applications.

Ok, this all sounds good.

>From the point of view of initially chunking the system, I suspect Dan's 
minimal kernal is still the *right* kernal or close to it. I.e., from there 
you can build up (to what we have now) or pare down (to the microkernal).

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.