Craig Latta <Craig.Latta at NetJam.ORG> wrote:
> Hi--
> 
> 	Luciano writes:
> 
> > Do you have any plans regarding the integration of Flow into the
> > Squeak image?
> 
> 	Yes; I've volunteered to coordinate a Squeak Foundation committee for
> this. Hopefully, the next release of Flow will be in the main image (or
> easily findable/loadable as a "standard module" or whatever that sort of
> thing gets called).

I read that you have "converted" Flow to "Squeak standard exceptions" so
that is a nonissue.

What about license then? Heard some rumour before that Flow is under
LGPL? I downloaded the latest zip but found no license at a cursory
look.
If I remember the latest "license threads" correctly we (the community)
pretty much agreed on that stuff that counts as "base image" (when
modules arrive I guess some modules will be officially dubbed as "base"
modules) should be released under SqueakL (at least).

I like Flow a lot even if I have a few itches about it (only nitpicks
but anyway, as the author you probably want any feedback you can get):

1. I personally don't like the added methods in Boolean like
#yourselfUnlessFalseDoFirst: . I had to stare and check and think and
almost still didn't get it! ;-) My advice: Get rid of those. :-)

2. The Client/Server classes built for reuse by inheritance would be
easier to use, I think, if constructed for reuse by composition. This
might be a personal preference but I mostly feel that its better and
more solid with "black box" reuse. My advice: Refactor into pieces meant
for composition.

And just to make things clear, the reasons I abandoned Flow was that it
ISN'T in the base image and thus currently suffers from that.
(incompatibilities with stuff in the base image, not enough use, not
updated to the latest image, not standard etc etc)

regards, Göran
PS. <CSOTD>"One per day will have to be enough, hmmm, I need to fix my
Celeste hack to just bug me "per day"...</CSOTD> DS