[squeak-dev] Installer vs. CodeLoader (was: The Trunk:
bert at freudenbergs.de
Thu Feb 25 11:24:36 UTC 2010
On 25.02.2010, at 10:52, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> On 2/24/10 1:10 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> I doubt that other code gets less critic.
>> If you're unsure that your code is generally useful or it may break some
>> stuff, just upload it to the Inbox and write a mail here about the
>> changes your code does. You can even add an Installer script to your mail,
>> so others can load the packages easily.
> I send ,no feedback
>> Installer is a better tool to load these IMHO.
> But Installer and all the others loader should be unloaded with Smalltalk
> Smalltalk unloadAllKnownPackages. Should be the first we do for having the
> next .image (SL3, 4.1, Mendieta)
I'd think that any non-core image should have Installer. And a core image should not have CodeLoader either.
> You could load Installer if suits best your needs.
> I insist CodeLoader is useful and more clear as you put the repositories and
> exact versions.
But you are aware that CodeLoader was created for a very different purpose, right? It's not supposed to load code for development. It's used to load code at runtime in user applications. Signature verification and security sandboxing is one of the major responsibilities of CodeLoader, as is fetching the code from remote sources.
Installer gained a lot of support lately. It's what we commonly use for loading development stuff now. Why would you insist on differing? In Installer you can give exact repositories and versions, too.
I'd rather remove your CodeLoader extensions. If others wanted them to stay, then we would at least have to change it to not bypass the security checks.
Levente already stated he preferred Installer. So with me that's 2:1 against extending CodeLoader. Any other opinions either way?
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev