Good point!  To be honest, I haven't tried saving my projects yet...I
need to give this a try!

As usual, I'm behind the rest of the class. :)

 

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:52:01AM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:
> How about projects?
> 
> That's what we and the children use ...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan
> 
> ------
> At 8:34 AM -0400 8/1/02, Kevin Fisher wrote:
> >Hi Folks:
> >
> >I've been wondering about something lately...how are people on this list
> >deploying Squeak applications?
> >
> >The way I see it you can do it one of two ways:
> >
> >1) An image per application, with all the changesets for the application
> >pre-loaded into the image.  If you've got a lot of Squeak apps though,
> >this can get rather space-hungry (given the size of the image+changeset).
> >You can go through the shrinking routine, and perhaps modules will help
> >shrink things down as well.
> >
> >2) A single image.  You have shell scripts/batch files written up for
> >each application, that fires up the Squeak VM with the stock image, and
> >loads a pre-made initialization script into the image on startup (which
> >then loads whatever is needed for the application).  The obvious problem
> >with this is if you've got an application that uses a LOT of changesets,
> >it could take a while to file them all in.
> >
> >3) A compromise between 1 and 2.   You have a single image.  When you have
> >a new application, you pre-load the changesets into the image.  Then you
> >have a set of run-time scripts that activate the right objects for your
> >application at startup.
> >
> >Is there a better way to do this?
> 
> 
> -- 
>