This sounds good. But there is still a place for static documents which can
only be annotated. When I first leasrnt what an object was, I couldn't see
the need for html, sgml,xml. I could make my own in squeak (limited by the
fonts)
Gary


>Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
>> Hi Dan--
>> 
>> 	I'd much rather use the Web just as much as necessary to escape the
>> Web. :)  After you have Squeak running on someone's machine, why not use
>> objects instead of webpages? Why not just have a peer-to-peer network of
>> Squeaks talking to each other (exchanging modules, etc.)? Why do we need
>> HTTP to intermediate?
>>
>> 	( http://netjam.org/squat )
>
>I think I agree with Craig. Having worked with GemStone etc I think a
>networked "common object world" or "shared Internet image" would be much
>more interesting. Escaping the web. The web is nice for many things,
>like entry points, because of two simple aspects:
>
>- Everyone knows how to get to a URL.
>- Nothing needed to install
>
>But a part from that the web simply sucks. :)
>
>This shared object world is of course a bit what Croquet is aiming at.
>But I would settle for a more conventional transactional shared object
>space, like GemStone offers.
>
>I have earlier toyed with the idea to "test" this idea of a large scale
>(=many clients) sharing of a common transactional image using Magma for
>SqueakMap. The idea was to simply set up SM as a Magma server and then
>let all SM clients (=all of us) simply connect to it.
>
>Chris told me that Magma should in theory scale pretty good this way.
>The thing that stopped me earlier was the prereq of forcing SM users to
>have the Magma client part in their images. And of course the fact that
>this was a "high tech" solution compared to the current much more low
>tech solution. For example, the current scheme just uses HTTP so
>firewalls/proxies are not a problem.
>
>regards, Göran
>
>