Yoshiki,

>   I actually hadn't tried^^;, but you can load 2.x image onto 3.x
> image, once you change the #openSourceFilesForImage method, right?


    I can load 2.8 image without changing the #openSourceFilesForImage
method.

    Only when I add class, then there is a problem.
    Please find attached log file.

>   To load 3.x image onto 2.x image, which sounds more useful than the
> opposide, requires some tweak.


    An image editor is even more useful ;-)

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoshiki Ohshima" <fwjg7834 at mb.infoweb.ne.jp>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: "PhiHo Hoang" <phiho.hoang at rogers.com>; <sgelkins at bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ENH] Image Browser: for browsing code in the other .image file


>   Hello,
>
> > > >     I guess this tool only works on image of the same version and
with a
> > > > change set only.
> > >
> > >   No, no, there is nothing that depends on specifically 3.2 or even
> > > 3.x, except a line in #openSourceFilesForImage: which specifies the
> > > .sources file name.  As long as corresponding .changes exists, it
> > > should be possible to load V2 image onto V3 and vice versa.
> >
> >     I have quite a few of 1.x and 2.x and 3.x images on my machines
> >     (with full source and changes files) only the 3.x work as
> >     expected.
>
>   I actually hadn't tried^^;, but you can load 2.x image onto 3.x
> image, once you change the #openSourceFilesForImage method, right?
>
>   To load 3.x image onto 2.x image, which sounds more useful than the
> opposide, requires some tweak.
>
>   The best approach would be to add a flag that tells which version
> (loaded image or loading image) should be treated as the "base" one
> and which is "new".  Then we wouldn't have to worry about making
> different versions of ImageBrowsers or back porting
> FileContentsBrowser to the older images.
>
> -- Yoshiki
>
> > PS:
> > > P.S.
> > >   PhiHo, if you are going to reply my email, please include the
> > > entire part of this message.  I still have a suspision that this one
> > > won't go through the normal channel.  Thank you,
> >
> >     I received only 1 copy of your mail,
> >     so assumingly it did not get to the list.
>
>   I'm sending this with my ISP account's From: line to see if the
> From: line is all that matters...  Thank you for all of your helps,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ImageBrowserLog.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 1249 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20021101/3f5eface/ImageBrowserLog.bin