I have been using package universes for a few days, and have discovered 
some of its limitations. I have also been wondering how best to 
integrate its use with SqueakMap.

We already have SqueakMap as the master repository and Lex, the creator 
of package universes does not seem to think that simply tagging items in 
SqueakMap according to what works with what and what doesnt would work 
very well, all things considered. To a certain extent I now agree with him.

I initially thought that having Universes separate from SqueakMap was a 
bad idea. However, after using universes I have now changed my mind and 
think that is a good idea. I imagine SqueakMap to be the Model, and 
Universes to be the View, with the community acting as the controller so 
to speak.

One of the limitations of Universes is that it does not have much in the 
way of integration with Squeakmap or Monticello, and so it looks to be 
attempting to make SqueakMap obsolete, but it is somewhat of a poor 
replacement. At present it is totally agnostic to the package provider, 
it simply loads a package from a url based upon the file's extension.

One of the positive things about SqueakMap is that it caches the 
packages, it also has more information on it than the universe. I think 
that it too would benefit from some feedback features, and more 
openness, and some indication of dependencies, but perhaps it makes 
sense not to have these as hard and fast rules. For example, Seaside 
specifies Kom, but some users may prefer Swazoo. This flexibility seems 
difficult to support prescriptively on the macro level, but could be 
supported in local mini/sub-universes, such as a "Swazoo users seaside 
universe".

Perhaps SqueakMap could allow anyone to upload a new version, but 
reserve "blessing" of releases to the owner/maintainers, since this is 
how a public squeaksource repository works by "social" default.

One Universe limitation is that when using a Universe package, unlike an 
installer script which integrates with the native monticello tools, the 
package is loaded, but the Monticello browser is not informed of the 
repository details.

This means that you have to manually inform the Monticello Browser of 
the required repository before a monticello package with dependencies 
referred to in a package universe will work. For example when Chris 
posted  'Magma Server' he would have had the Monticello Browser properly 
configured on posting the package to the Universe and it will work for 
him but it will not work for users out of the box who do not have the 
Monticello repositories configured.

So thinking about it this it would not be a problem at all if Package 
Universes replaced:

    http://www.squeaksource.com/Magma/MagmaServerLoader-cmm.25.mcz

with:

    Installer squeaksource project: 'MagmaTester'; install: 
'MagmaServerLoader-cmm.25'.

So why not have Package Universes call installer for SqueakMap items too.

    Installer squeakmap install: 'MyPackage(1.0)'.

(I will fix installer to fall back onto using the http interface 
#websqueakmap if SMSPackageLoader is not present)

By doing this we can uphold the use of SqueakMap as the place to publish 
released packages, with Universes being the place to define dependencies 
within a locally defined context/scope/use scenarios.

If the "publish to squeakmap" button could be fixed on squeaksource the 
picture would be complete.

This approach also allows mantis fixes and change sets to be included in 
the Universes without any extra work.

thoughts feedback?

best regards

Keith







I think that having universes, together with sub-universes and 
personal-local universes