[Squeakfoundation]A bit about SM1.1 and dependencies
danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue Feb 11 20:14:51 CET 2003
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Well, given my plan of us being able to register "package
> configurations" associated with a package release *as* a Resource - it
> is needed. And Links too of course - Resources of course need to be
> linked to something
> But don't get scared by this - these two mechanisms are very simple and
> I have that stuff more or less implemented including package releases.
Not scared, and I don't doubt it's simple, just said it's not necessary.
You know, Simplest thing that could possibly work, You ain't gonna need
it, and all that crap... ;-)
> Things I *am* waiting with:
> - The ability to make modifications to the map in a distributed fashion.
> - And thus also: The API for modifying the map.
> And two more things I *do* want to include:
> - A sensible cache instead of the braindead scheme right now. But this
> is also simple.
> - The new service architecture instead of the current "install or
> download" choice.
Distributed modification and cache are, IMO, easily delayed. We don't,
AFAICT, have a real performance/reliability problem that would make
these essential (though there might be other reasons for them I'm not
aware of...). OTOH, services and API for modifying would be really nice.
Services are important for making use of the dependencies, by letting
the category of the package indicate that it's a multiple, and modifing
would allow much convinience to developers.
On the gripping hand, the services architechture could actually also not
be part of the SM catalog - one might say it's an extension that can be
either used or ignored by the UIs, and that the only modification needed
to SM is to break off the existing install and such into such services.
> Note that the package configurations and corresponding dependency engine
> I have been blabbering about is *not* included here - that is meant to
> come as an addon later. And anyone could start coding that up right now
> I think.
I wouldn't know how because I don't know what the API for downloading a
specific package version will look like... but I might as soon as I do.
> Well, I am not sure what is the best way forward - I have SM1.1 on my
> drive and it does have package releases, quite a lot of refactoring
> done, links and resources in the model and the new service architecture
> halfbaked. I have a sketch in my head for a better cache model, need to
> whip through the web UIs so that we can register releases, resource etc
> - but that is pretty easy coding.
> Anyway, I will try to throw in a bunch of hours in this the coming week
> - at least enough to post a developer snapshot so that anyone could help
> me - if there is interest. My current fixed price job is pressing me
> pretty hard. It will get easier in late feb, early march.
I have interest, and would be glad to help flesh out the services along
the lines above. Whether that'd be as a part of SM for you to integrate
or as a separate package - as you wish. It'll be very easy to specify
that the UIs require both SM and SM Services after we get dependencies,
so I don't see a problem... :-)
More information about the Squeakfoundation