<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Jason Johnson <<a href="mailto:jason.johnson.081@gmail.com">jason.johnson.081@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ok, then I have understood your use correctly. :) Is the Namespace<br>
implementation you have so far from something Squeak could use (I ask<br>
because you previous message seemed to indicate otherwise)?<br>
Personally I wouldn't be interested in the secure image, but your<br>
Namespace solution sounds pretty good from what I've read.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>Please reply under postings.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br><br>Gulik.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg</a><br>
<a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a>