Against package removal

Anthony Hannan ajh18 at cornell.edu
Thu May 8 23:19:59 UTC 2003


goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > There will still always be the "Full" image concept, though, with all of the
> > development and media content of the traditional Squeak image.  I agree that
> > we do need to make the Full image content easily available to everyone, so
> > that we can do all that good stuff like finding all senders/implementors.
> 
> Just want to reiterate that this is false. You can not possibly find all
> senders and implementors just by using the current Full image. There are
> over 230 packages on SM right now. This means there are TONS of code
> outside of the image as we speak. And that is how it always has been.
> It was only the lucky few apps that got into the image that have been
> saved from the code rot.

Well, that's the problem.  All of these packages should be in the image.
 And if we had proper modules they could be.  Finally, if we had
distribution capabilities the image can grow very large without it being
a problem.  We should not try to solve the growth problem by trying to
keep things out.  We should solve it using database/distributed
technology.

Cheers,
Anthony



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list