I think we got wires crossed... I talked to Avi about this a bit more 
off-list.  I wasn't saying that any packages could not be encompassed as 
DVS packages or that DVS wouldn't be able to remove them.  I was just 
saying that a DVS package would not be capable of doing the initial 
removal from the image in their current state.  Once the image is fixed 
and the package created and (possibly) refactored as necessary, there is 
no problem.  I was just arguing that the update stream will have to be 
modified to support these removals - we can't just do it externally with 
packages.

I, like many others it seems, would love the see updates that remove 
code (code that is easily installable from SM) but that's another issue, 
really.

Hope that's clearer,

Julian

danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:

> As far as my imagination serves me right now, Smalltalk is powerful
> enough that any connection can be created/managed using class extensions
> or registrations (as you say "...less directly coupled..").
>
> The problem of SystemDictionary remove scripts could be handled by
> either removing all references to PWS (since it is now implicitly
> removable, by being a DVS package that isn't neither broken, or depended
> on), or using a registry for thing that want to be discardable (if
> there's an added value for it).
>
> Of course my imagination is a limited, treacherous thing, and I'm sure
> you or the future will soon prove it so ;-)
>
> Daniel
>
> Julian Fitzell  wrote:
>
> >Avi Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>My point there was that the removals should be separate in time 
> from the
> >>>point where the package is made removable.
> >>>
> >>>Assuming we eventually want the image to be actually smaller, we'll 
> need
> >>>to remove them in updates at some point, no? (after adequate warning,
> >>>and the remove can be confitional on the users not having installed the
> >>>package explicitly from SM, and so forth).
> >>>
> >>>But I see not rush - the important thing is to make things cleanly
> >>>remov*able*, as outlined.
> >>>
> >>>Right?
> >>
> >>
> >>Yes, and in fact, once the packages are clearly delineated in the image
> >>(ie, through PackageInfo's naming conventions) a removal script probably
> >>isn't even necessary - just tell DVS to unload the package (or at least
> >>get it to generate the removal script for you).
> >>
> >>Avi
> >
> >That can't be a complete solution though.  What about the stuff that
> >needs to be removed from SystemDictionary for PWS, for example?  That
> >should be in the DVS package so it won't be removed by DVS, etc. It may
> >also involve changing other methods that depend on the package being
> >removed to be less directly coupled, or whatever... I don't think you
> >can count on DVS doing the complete removals from the base image.
> >
> >Julian
> >
> >--
> >julian at beta4.com
> >Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)
>
>


-- 
julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)