Daniel ,

    Everybody is anxiuosly waiting for 'u no who' to announce 'u no what' at
a proper time 'u no when' (probably coffe time ;-).

    Having said that, I recall, Andreas once expressed his interrest in a
core module system.

    Maybe your one more round of "modularizing modules" would prove helpful.

> and start separating out pieces of code from the image, based on the 3.2
code.

    I like to second this approach considering the maintainer of 3.2 decided
to fork so that from a nicely cleaned up 3.2 image, there is no way to
'upgrade' to 3.3 alpha which has support for modules.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.


----- Original Message -----
From: <danielv at netvision.net.il>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Modules ? (Re: Squeak book !)


> 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
>