Now you are talking!  I think this is the way to start thinking about 
all such problems and needs....

Andreas Raab wrote
At 10:07 PM 3/5/2007, Andreas Raab wrote:
>For example, a simple, yet perfectly valid answer to the problem is 
>to load different versions of modules in different images, or, even 
>more extreme, on different computers. Mind you, these modules can 
>still be enabled to interact by using the network to communicate, 
>however, for the purpose of our discussion, they *are* perfectly 
>isolated against each other. And now tell me why this is "utopian" 
>or why we shouldn't enable something like that from within Squeak to 
>minimize communication overhead and space requirements where possible.
>
>And once we start looking at it from that angle we see that 
>-starting from perfect isolation- there are scopes at which we 
>expect modules to be isolated (across machines) and scopes at which 
>we expect them to interact (for example, inside applications). With 
>that basic model, we can explore which interactions we can enable 
>while still adhering to whatever strictness of a isolation we'd like 
>to implement. None of which is utopian, or a halting problem or 
>whatever; just deliberately chosen tradeoffs. (to come back to the 
>original thread, Java took one stand on these issues and judging 
>from the results they seem to work)