Hi--

	Jesse writes:

> The problem I had [with Flow] was that I just lost patience tracing
> the control flow through so many interconnected classes.

	I just want to point out that Jesse is referring to John McIntosh's
port of Flow (see
http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com/papers/tipsAndThoughts/codeFragments.html).
Folks may have the same problem with the main version. :) 
(http://netjam.org/flow)  However, I do think the main version is easier
to understand. The adaptation re-introduces several elements of official
Squeak that I eliminated (or hid) in Flow, in part due to complexity
concerns.

	At any rate, I'm very interested in any feedback or questions people
have.

> Anyway, for my purposes I would be satisfied with simply more
> stream-like sockets.  It's okay for the interface to differ from that
> of files, because you have to be more aware of disconnections and so
> on, anyway.

	Actually, in the file support currently scheduled for release 3 of
Flow, the interface is very similar. Exceptional situations like
disconnections are handled largely via, er, exception handling. :)

> But it would be nice, instead of reading data into buffers, counting
> the data returned, and looping until the buffer is full, I cold just
> ask it to return the next N bytes and have all that done for me.
> Something like
> 
>         mySocket nextBytes: nBytes ifDisconnect: exceptionBlock
> 
> would be quite handy.

	Flow supports that.


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
crl at watson.ibm.com
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]