On Apr 29, 2004, at 3:19 AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Yes, of course a proper robust lightweight and base image standard OODB
> would be what I *really want*. Magma is pretty close to that - though I
> am not sure how intrusive it is in the image. GOODS is IMHO 
> disqualified
> because it is not pure Squeak and I don't think it qualifies as
> lightweight either.

Just a note on the relative "weight" of Magma and GOODS: the Magma 
client is 185k of zipped code, the GOODS client is 16k of zipped code.  
So, talking just about the clients, Magma is about an order or 
magnitude larger.  This could be for a lot of reasons: Magma may well 
have lots more test cases, for example.  But I did want to point out 
that, assuming you have a server running somewhere, the GOODS client is 
a very light dependency.

Avi