what makes relief different
craig.latta at netjam.org
Wed Feb 12 21:10:27 UTC 2003
Hi Michael, Alan--
> I should also direct interested folks to the similar mechanisms used
> at http://www.squeakland.org to provide downloads and installations
> for the "Squeak as used by children" -- Michael Reuger did the nice
> job here.
I think there's an important difference, though. The Squeakland stuff
installs Squeak so that it runs as a web browser plugin (although you
can "escape the web browser" later). I'm interested in installing Squeak
so that it runs "normally", as quickly as possible. This way we don't
need to be concerned with the vagaries of how the various web browsers
support plugins. (There are a few platform-dependent details with regard
to security, etc., however.)
> Wouldn't it make sense to use the existing plugin architecture for
> this? Except for Mac OS 9 the plugin is independent of VM and image
> and very small.
Relief is so much smaller that I think it's worth supporting its ~200
lines of (very vanilla) C code.
> All you would need to do is to build an installer that includes the
> minimal VM and image you used instead of the current almost kitchen sink
> plugin image and VM.
I like the fact that relief doesn't include the snapshot or virtual
machine, but instead gets them from URLs that can point to whatever is
most appropriate. When Squeak goes through new releases, relief can keep
working; it's "time portable".
improvisational musical informaticist
craig at netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
More information about the Squeak-dev