AW: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote

[Andreas Raab]

Dan,

Personally, I'm in for some of the larger chunks first. Why? Well, for
one thing it's going to test out the framework in some areas that'll
really benefit all of us. Secondly, it's perhaps not as easy to define
the boundaries for an application like Celeste (some people have already
pointed out that some of the stuff Celeste is doing might be of interest
for other apps so a careful definition of boundaries is important).
Thirdly, having fast and "big" results (like the ability to cut out and
load stuff like Wonderland and 3D) will convince people that we're
_seriously_ talking about modularity and encourage them to build their
own designs into their frameworks.

Just my =80.02,
  - Andreas


> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org=20
> [mailto:squeakfoundation-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] Im=20
> Auftrag von Dan Ingalls
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2002 20:08
> An: squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Betreff: Re: [Squeakfoundation]What I would like to promote
>=20
>=20
> ducasse <ducasse@iam.unibe.ch> wrote...
> >I think that Celeste is "well" separated from the core so=20
> this could be
> >interesting to try.
>=20
> Hi Stef -
>=20
> I've been reflecting more on this since responding to your=20
> message.  I completely defer to you and Henrik on which way=20
> to go, but I see a choice here:
>=20
> Either we...
> Find various small things that are pretty modular and do them first
>=20
> Or we...
> Take various big chunks that are pretty modular and do them first.
>=20
> By "big chunks", I'm thinking along the lines of the various=20
> discardX methods in SystemdDictionary (like all of 3D, all of=20
> networking, etc).  So this would mean instead of doing=20
> Celeste, we do all of Networking as a chunk.  Then *later* we=20
> refine this and break networking down into Celeste, Scamper,=20
> IRC, HTML, PWS, etc.
>=20
> I just have the feeling that it might not be much harder to=20
> draw isolation lines around the big chunks than it is around=20
> the little ones, and the payoff might be higher, in that it=20
> might *soon* be possible for mere mortals to perform their=20
> own versions of majorShrink, and have it really work.
>=20
> As I say, I'm happy to go with whatever you guys decide, but=20
> I did want to call attention to the choice, and have you make=20
> a conscious decision.
>=20
> 	- Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>=20
>=20