About Flow in Squeak 3.X

Craig Latta craig at netjam.org
Tue Dec 2 22:49:30 UTC 2003


Hi Jimmie--

> People requiring what the "old snapshot" or current Squeak does can
> still use the current Squeak. Nothing impairs/impedes current
> capabilities.

	Right, I was talking about development speed. It seems like the
transition to a modular system will happen faster if there's more
attention paid by package authors to making their stuff work in such a
system, and each person's time is limited. "Users" probably won't
care... until they start wanting to run things in small spaces, or
become developers, etc. :)

> Which is easier/better?
> Comanche/Seaside/etc built-on/converted-to Flow or
> ... as they are and install Squeak's stream/network classes into
> minimal-snapshot-plus-modules-image?

	Or adapted away from the old stream/network classes *and* recast as
modules for the minimal snapshot. :)  All three seem viable to me
(although I admit I'd find the third option most usable :).


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
craig at netjam.org
[|] Proceed for Truth!




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list