[squeak-dev] Installer vs. CodeLoader (was: The Trunk: Collections-edc.314.mcz)

keith keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Feb 25 16:35:08 UTC 2010

>> 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 think it would help to clarify nomenclature (again)...

developer / fun
web / full

The kernel image would be the image with an absolute minimum, except I  
would argue the ability to specify a single local script on the  
command line, &/ a REPL to the console. The kernel would not even be  
expected to have a UI, and it does not have to be usable, apart from  
running command line scripts, or something.

A core image is one that has a GUI, is usable, and has one dependency  
(i.e. Installer or equivalent) for loading anything else.
i.e. it should not have MC because MC is loadable easily with  
installer. If you do provide MC in the core then you potentially  
prevent others from loading different implementations of MC.

A build image is one that has a selection of tools for building bigger  
images, so might have one or more of SqueakMap, Universes, MC, Gofer  
Metacello etc.

A basic image would be the standard release. I.e. a selection of tools  
chosen and loaded out of the menu of available options. i.e. pick the  
Transcript implementation, Browsers etc.

Developer/web/seaside/magma derived images for different purposes,  
either based on "basic", with the standard tools, or "build" with non- 
standard tools

full/fun - the old style everything interesting demo as we had with  

max - every package that can load loaded.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list