On 5-Oct-06, at 9:05 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

> Thanks Tim the process sounds fine but before we go to the effort I  
> would
> like to know if there is a consensus that this is a good thing to do.

Well that's definitely not for me to decide; I think it's perfectly  
sensible to make them available within the VMMaker world and that  
would leave it up to you (as in all you out there) to discuss the rest.

>
> Do you agree it is a worthwhile effort and a reasonable goal to  
> include
> these little primitives internally in the distributed VM's?
>
>> Tim:
>> Is this
>> a new plugin, or are you wanting to expend an existing one?
>
> I would like to have the DESPlugin which is already a part of the  
> VMMaker
> compiled internally in the distributed VM's, and we are considering  
> writing
> others to speed up implementations.

I'm puzzled by your use of 'internally' in two places - indicating  
that you think it important. Internal, external, it makes no  
difference to vmmaker stuff and no programmatic difference to anyone  
else. As far as I can recall, the general habit of vm building for  
most platforms is to include pretty much all the plugins in the  
distribution download, and to have most of those compiled internally.

On windows for example this is largely a user convenience matter  
because apparently windows users can't cope with more than one file.  
On OSX, the application bundle means there is no particular advantage  
either way. On *nix I have no idea because I simply haven't used it  
in along time. Unix users probably want the plugins to be kernel  
extensions with cryptic names.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each  
other