Hi Andreas,

> * Setup issues. Can MobVM *always* figure out what the "right" way to
> access stuff on the web is?! Regardless of platform, browser setup etc?!

    Browser setup is not relevant. MobVM uses the service provided by
    the OS directly.

    I guess this feature is not crossplatform. Other platforms may have
    to implement differently.

> What about fire walls, proxies and all of the other "niceties" of a
> modern computer setup?!

    I think as long as we stick to HTTP, there won't be a problem.

    If there is any problem, that's exceptional. I have not got any report
    on this kind of problems. If there are any coming, I will try to solve.
    (would someone please file a report having this kind of problem ;-)

> * No "offline access". If you haven't accessed a specific plugin while
> you were online you won't get it. Your ISP just had a power outage?!
> Uh, oh...

    No problem, you can always download the whole thing in 1 zip file ;-)

    And if there is a power outage right in your home, uh oh, good excuse
    for taking a break ;-)

> * The possibility of "dll hell". Even today we have problems with what
> (external) plugin exactly is used under which conditions. This problem
> grows exponentially with the number of plugins you have to worry about.

    Not a problem, MobVM can look at just ONE place to find the plugin.
    We can design that ;-)

    And if it is a problem, it's just the same problem that the classic VM
must
    face when there are stray plugins hanging around at the riight place and
    right time ;-)

> * The possibility of versioning conflicts (does MobVM actually have any
> versioniong?!), both in the terms of "what plugin belongs to what VM
> version" as well as "what plugin does require a specific other plugin
> version".

    It's not implemented yet, but it's anticipated, waiting for input.

    Any ideas as how should we handle this versioning issue ;-)

    ( and the first release of MobVM was not even pre-Alpha,
       it was pre-existing  ;-)

> I think that the "impossibility to get anything wrong" clearly outweighs
> the (perceived or real) disadvantages of the "classic everything
> builtin" VM. That's a personal opinion of course.

    What do you mean by "impossibility to get anything wrong" ?

    Does the classic VM still load a (bad) extenal plugin even
    if it already had a good builtin plugin.

    I told you about that many moons ago. I hope it's fixed now. :-)

    Having jumped through all these loops, I wondwer if you recall
    that MobVM can be deployed with any plugin as internal or
    external. You have your choice.

    You can build and deploy a mega MobVM with all plugins as internal.
    (just leave out the things you don't need)

    The classic VM certainly cannot be deployed with all plugins as
external.

    Your arguments make me wonder why we had external plugins at all.

    For that matter, it would be very much safer to stick with numbered
    primitives and expanding it.

    Actually, we can still have named primitives but just forget about
plugins.
    (make them all stuckins.;-)

    You know, I anticipate that in another few decades, Squeak will have
    thousands and thousands of plugins, and I hate to distibute GB's VM ;-)

    MobVM brings the concept of plugins to its height. !

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

    P.S: Will the classic VM support both VI3 and VI4 ? :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: Which plugins?


> Hi PhiHo,
>
> I don't consider any of the disadvantages you mention to be really that
> important. The major problematic points I see are:
>
> * Setup issues. Can MobVM *always* figure out what the "right" way to
> access stuff on the web is?! Regardless of platform, browser setup etc?!
> What about fire walls, proxies and all of the other "niceties" of a
> modern computer setup?!
>
> * No "offline access". If you haven't accessed a specific plugin while
> you were online you won't get it. Your ISP just had a power outage?! Uh,
> oh...
>
> * The possibility of "dll hell". Even today we have problems with what
> (external) plugin exactly is used under which conditions. This problem
> grows exponentially with the number of plugins you have to worry about.
>
> * The possibility of versioning conflicts (does MobVM actually have any
> versioniong?!), both in the terms of "what plugin belongs to what VM
> version" as well as "what plugin does require a specific other plugin
> version".
>
> The key reason why I am concerned about the above is that no newbie will
> be able to understand "what went wrong" if any of the above cause a
> problem. And not even you may... I had this problem recently with a few
> people where "Squeak crashed" and after a while we found that there were
> lingering plugins from some old Squeak installation being used...
>
> I think that the "impossibility to get anything wrong" clearly outweighs
> the (perceived or real) disadvantages of the "classic everything
> builtin" VM. That's a personal opinion of course.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
> > Behalf Of PhiHo Hoang
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:42 AM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: Which plugins?
> >
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > > What are the tradeoffs pro/con of using
> > > MobVM vs. the standard VM?
> >
> >     As I see it, the disadvantage in using MobVM are:
> >
> >     1/- It takes more disk space.
> >
> >     2/- It is somewhat slower if you use separate InterpreterPlugin,
> >         ObjectMemoryPlugin and PrimitivesPlugin
> >
> >     3/- Not as much field tested as the standard VM.
> >
> >     The advantages are:
> >
> >     1/- It takes less disk space, smaller foot print at run
> > time if you
> >         need only a subset of the bundled plugins buitlin the
> > standard VM.
> >
> >     2/- More flexible you can run both VI3 and VI4 with MobVM.
> >         Other image formats should be easily accomodated..
> >
> >     3/- MobVM is supposedly 100% compatible with the standard VM.
> >         It can do anything that the standard VM can do, but
> > not the other
> > way
> >         around.
> >
> >     4/- It's easier to maintain and innovate.
> >         The work load can be easily distributed, because it
> > is very modular.
> >
> >     Actually, you and others should try both MobVM and
> >     the standard VM and let us know what you think.
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >
> >     PhiHo.
> >
> >
> >
>
>