Hey, Bruce, you're writing from the future too now? ;-)

Seriously now, seeing as we're sort of choked with the modules system as
it exists in 3.3a, we should consider in my opinion doing one more round
of "modularizing modules", and start separating out pieces of code from
the image, based on the 3.2 code.

Of course any work we do on this will be compatible with (and even more
useful in the context of) the future module system modus operandi.

If people think this is a good way to go, I have some ideas on how we
can make progress in this direction.

Daniel Vainsencher

Bruce ONeel <beoneel at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> I'll put one vote for a reasonable collection of base
> modules that lets beginners download one thing and
> get started.
> 
> We can argue endlessly over what that list
> should be :-)
> 
> cheers
> 
> bruce
> 
> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> > > > Just to add some history, when the chapter was commissioned
> > > > (er.."requested") Comanche was far less done. It got a lot more done over
> > > > the period of the writing, but it's still not in the image.
> > > 
> > > Why isn't it?  It's clearly used far more than PWS is, and it includes
> > > several classes (SocketStream, ConnectionHandler, TimeStamp) that I
> > > frequently use even in non-web contexts.  Including the base Comanche
> > > classes in the image seems like a big win to me.  But maybe that's just
> > > me.
> > 
> > I agree. But on the other hand we need to stop thinking about the
> > "image" and start thinking in the terms of Modules!
> > 
> > I have always thought that we are splitting up the image into Modules
> > and the border of the image will then be less clear. Should we have some
> > form of "blessing" of Modules meaning that they are considered to be
> > Modules we all together try to maintain and that we, as in "the Squeak
> > community" consider them to be of some fundamental importance/use? Such
> > Modules would then typically be included in the "base distribution" of
> > Squeak. Or we simply stop including Modules in the base and instead make
> > the base "minimal" and then let the user/developer use SqueakMap to find
> > what he/she needs. Just like the apt system in Debian. They also have
> > collections of Modules suitable for different "tasks" - that might also
> > be an interesting model.
> > 
> > Anyway, just thinking aloud.
> > 
> > > Avi
> > 
> > regards, Göran