Java's modules rock? (was Re: election details *PLEASE READ*)
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Mar 1 09:22:18 UTC 2007
stephane ducasse wrote:
>> In short: What impresses me about the Java solution is not that it's
>> flawless - what impresses me is that it works, that people actually
>> use it to deploy code and this code actually works in the way intended.
>
> But do you think that VW, VA code does not work once deployed? I would
> like to understand why Jar are better than parcels for example.
Here are some "simple" issues: How do Parcels deal with conflicting
modifications to base classes? Say, one that says "Object>>isCommon
^true" and one that says "Object>>isCommon ^false"? (Java simply doesn't
allow modifications to base classes which, really, isn't such a bad
thing from the point of view of modularity)
Another one: Which assurances do parcels give in terms of security? As
far as I know there is no bytecode verifier, parcel have full access to
the entire Smalltalk namespace (covered by ClassLoaders in Java), there
are no limitations in terms of what operations a parcel can perform (nil
become: true; Java had a good set of fixes in this area to get it right
and not to leak ambient authority) and I don't think VW even knows what
a sandbox is.
A third one: Which namespace are parcels loaded into? Can two different
versions of parcels be loaded side-by-side? How (if at all) do they
affect each other? Etc.
> May be I should post to VW to see what are the problem with deployed
> code in VW.
> A parcel in VW has dev and depl prerequisites and it seems to work too.
Well, sure. Sorta. Kinda. :-) We can do the same in Squeak with projects
and change sets and it seems to work, too. Sorta. Kinda. :-)
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|