monticello bundles

Avi Bryant avi at
Mon Jan 19 22:46:46 UTC 2004

On Jan 19, 2004, at 2:38 PM, bernhard at wrote:

> Regarding recursive bundles: I think it might be even better if they
> were not recursive. I have long time ENVY background. We used recursive
> bundles, called Configuration Maps with Required Maps in ENVY
> terminology, for some years and had problems. We had a lot of work
> maintaining them. Then we switched to an approach where we used one
> Configuration Map for each deliverable. In that way the same package
> version ended up in multiple bundles. This approach turned out to work
> much better for us.

Thanks, that kind of information is great to know.

> *** In the process I found out that the following code compiles in
> Squeak but does not in VAST nor in Dolphin: #; (I don't think I like
> that behaviour.) Monticello relies on this in a test case, which
> includes a literal array that contains Smalltalk code. I must admit 
> that
> I did not understand that code.

Feel free to remove the test methods that have that symbol in them.  
They ensure backwards compatibility with old (and somewhat buggy) file 
formats that Monticello no longer uses - hardly critical for a port.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list