[Squeakfoundation]re: Flow integration
Luciano Notarfrancesco
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:12:07 -0800
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
>But please let us stop talking about choosing one before the other -
>let's aim at having them
>*both* as packages so people can pick and choose. That is after all what
>we want, right?
>
>
Is that possible? I can image two different loadable packages for
networking, but I think the base image will include some kind of file
system support, and then you'll have to choose between Flow or the
current FileStream hierarchy. The same happens with Streams. I don't
believe the Streams are ever going to become a loadable package, so
we'll have to choose between the current Streams or Flow's,
The Guides will take the final decision, but if it was my call I would
forget backward compativility and move Squeak forward. I have old code,
and I know I might not have the time to port everything to Flow, but
that's why we have a repository with old images. My old code runs
perfectly in old images, and I don't expect it to run in newer images. I
have used Flow in two projects:
- A TCP/IP stack, where the sockets are resources (polymorphic with
Flow's ExternalResources);
- A framework for distributed agents (my "Army of Mobile Agents"). And
in this project I implemented a hierarchy of ProxyResources: files,
sockets and pipes than run thorugh a syscalls proxy... some form of RPC
for system calls. All system calls are marshaled and executed in a very
tiny server (~ 100 bytes) running on a different host.
This is my experience with Flow, and I believe Flow is simpler, cleaner
and more useful than the Streams currently in Squeak.
IMHO, etc. Really :)
Luciano.-