SqueakMap crashes in 3.10 beta.7158

Keith Hodges keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Nov 1 19:13:42 UTC 2007

Dear All,

Knowing that the base image is going to get smaller, I thought that we
had already established that the release base image is not supposed to
be the end user image, but a basis for making published images for end
use-cases. Of which squeak-dev is but one example and Edgars promised
FunSqueak would be another.

If I am putting together a release image tailored to my needs it becomes
difficult if I have to first remove the packages that I dont want. I
think that this could improve eventually, but right now, removing is
harder than adding. So the image should be distributed as minimally as
possible. The whole point of pulling things out of 3.10 is to make it
smaller. I think 40 classes is quite a lot, 1% is a lot. Its only 1%
because there is so much other stuff still to be removed.

If I am wanting to deploy a minimal image I do not want to duplicate
functionality, SqueakMap is duplicate functionality, because Installer
can load from squeakmap and Installer is one class!

Ok it may not be the best design or code out there but making it one
class was an initial goal for this reason. On the basis that other
larger-code would be removed in order to minimize the image footprint,
Installer should be small enough to remain in a minimal image while
having sufficient functionality to install whatever you might like from
whatever source.



p.s. The biggest problem with Universes that I see is a social one,
rather than a technical one. I think that they need to be in the control
of one "body" of maintainers. Either they need to have one master to be
in charge, or they need to be open so that the community can perform the
role colaboratively. Having different parts of the universe under
different control cultures makes it harder to make a coherent story.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list