Avi Bryant wrote:
> On 6/28/05, marcelo Cortez <jmdc_marcelo at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> 
>>Great!
>>
>>  The new implementation has support for md5
>>connections?
>>The older one hasn´t
> 
> 
>>From a quick look at the code, I think it doesn't, unfortunately.
> 
> Incidentally, although I'm all for portable code, the way the port to
> Smalltalk/X was done makes the code much less pleasant to read - there
> are what amount to #ifdef blocks for isSqueak and isSmalltalkX
> littered throughout... if it's too hard to abstract these away, it
> might not be a bad idea to port those fixes and unit tests back into
> the earlier clean Squeak-only version, IMHO.

What about subclasses that implement version-specific behavior? The code could 
create instances of the proper version at runtime, like some of the filesystem 
classes do.

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm at io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm
As a math major, I don't have to be able to add -- I just have to be able
to PROVE that I can add.