I'll note if the plugin is external then the plugin support people  
can lobby to include it in the plugins
distributed on a platform, then update as they see fit by working  
with the website/ftp folks. Otherwise
for internal ones they have to get the VM builder involved to build a  
new VM which takes yet another level of coordination and another  
person involved in the process of having all the right files,  
fiddling with build environments, updating the VM SVN tree etc.   
Which Tim rightly points out doesn't gain any benefits anyway.

This is not to say that I won't occasionally build  external plugins  
for folks that haven't the required sofware/hardware or expertise of  
course.  Oh and $$ is always acceptable as a bribe.


On 5-Oct-06, at 10:34 AM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>

--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com>
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===