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