Hi all!

Chris Muller <afunkyobject at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Göran 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.
> 
> I can comment on this.  First, as far as intrusiveness goes, it is very
> *non-intrusive*.  That was a primary design goal from the very beginning. 
> There are *no* base changes, even though there are several method *extensions*
> to base classes.  But all my extension methods are prefixed with "ma" to
> minimize namespace collisions.
> 
> Let me tell you, when you load Magma into your image, you can feel confident
> that your image will remain perfectly intact.

This sounds good.

> Avi wrote: 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yeah, the reason the Magma SAR is 185K is because Magma is composed of about 10
> independent "modules".  This does tend to add to the bulk of the code.

You mean that they overlap in order to be independent of each other?

[SNIP]
> I am very excited about Magma's future.  The latest version on SM is the
> best-yet, and I'm currently working on some exciting enhancements (exciting to
> me, anyway) while still keeping with its philosophy of simplicity.
> 
>  - Chris

Just as a side note, I am using Magma in a sample app for an article.
Will post more when it is ready.

regards, Göran