[Vm-dev] Request: VM support for opening browser
estebanlm at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 08:23:09 UTC 2012
Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness.
For me, saying that is like saying a mennonite community is safer just because they are isolated. They are not. And in any case, the price payed for that isolation is to stay in the 18th century...
I think putting this solution in vm is a poor solution, that prevents adaptation in time... just like a mennonite community, btw :)
Frankly... most important question about having it as a plugin is "who will maintain it?"... because problem is not adding a plugin, problem is keep it in time, and match changing outside technologies.
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
>> I disagree in general with extend vm complexity to add things that can >perfectly work in smalltalk or using a FFI package...
> Saying you can do this using FFI/OSProcess is a weak argument.
> "fopen" could be in the Smalltalk image as well - but we have it
> in the VM.
> We may include both into Pharo - so nobody has to load FFI + ConfigurationOfExternalWebbrowser.
> But I dont think that is the route for Squeak, Cuis, ...
> These Smalltalks may profit from an VM implementation without
> making them "unsafe" or more bound to native OS with FFI and
> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
> for both sides. Should we vote?
> According to
> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)
More information about the Vm-dev