On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok, then I have understood your use correctly. :)  Is the Namespace
> implementation you have so far from something Squeak could use (I ask
> because you previous message seemed to indicate otherwise)?
> Personally I wouldn't be interested in the secure image, but your
> Namespace solution sounds pretty good from what I've read.
>


Please reply under postings.

My Namespaces implementation requires a complete refactoring of everything
in the image and review of all code ever written. It would be a major effort
and would break backwards compatibility.

Sure, it /could/ be used for Squeak. In reality, it will never become part
of Squeak because the community would be shifting paradigms without a clutch
and would probably disintegrate into chaos. The infighting would be
terrible. There might be blood. There would be so much flaming that you
could cook eggs on your mail client.

It would be easier and less stress to wait for SecureSqueak to be usable,
and use that as a base for any Namespaced projects you want.

Gulik.

-- 
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080708/c0ec4cd3/attachment.htm