[squeak-dev] Celeste email client in Squeak 4.4

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 14:57:24 UTC 2012


Oops, I just saw Edgar's note.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have any reasons other than intuition.  Just thinking about it
> -- with Celeste we have a standard window, a domain model and access
> to SMTP.  Which of these would be difficult in 4.4?  Nothing comes to
> mind.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:10 AM, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Celeste was always a cool example and it sounds like it wouldn't be
>>> much to get it going in 4.4.  I hope someone will do it.
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> what are the reasons why you thing that porting wouldn't be a big issue.
>>
>> Because it relies on libraries which did not change much from 4.1 to 4.4?
>>
>> Do you remember what it needs as prerequisite?
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <jecel at merlintec.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hannes,
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>>>
>>>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>>>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>>>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
>>>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>>>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>>>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>>>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>>>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>>>
>>>> -- Jecel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list