<body><div id="__MailbirdStyleContent" style="font-size: 10pt;font-family: Arial;color: #000000">
Installer has a very big advantage: its name. That name is descriptive und discoverable. We should benefit from that and evolve Installer into something we all like. :-)<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Marcel</div><div class="mb_sig"></div><blockquote class="history_container" type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px; margin-top:20px; margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<p style="color: #AAAAAA; margin-top: 10px;">Am 30.04.2020 10:54:43 schrieb Tobias Pape <das.linux@gmx.de>:</p><div style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>> On 30.04.2020, at 10:21, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel@hpi.de> wrote:<br>> <br>> Installer can become a great starting point for code and resource loading for all kinds of local experiments. Including file-in from the file system. It might already be: Installer class >> installFile:.<br>> <br>> So, Installer is at a different abstraction level and has different use cases compared to Metacello.<br><br>Seems like it, but it ultimately waters down and mixes installations of different abstractions.<br>That is probably wrong.<br><br>For me, Installer currently is not more than a shim atop Monticello. All other usecases of it have either vanished or are better expressed declaratively (as in Metacello).<br><br>Best regards<br> -Tobias<br><br><br></marcel.taeumel@hpi.de></div></blockquote>
</div></body>