[Vm-dev] Request: VM support for opening browser

[Esteban Lorenzano]

also java, .net, etc... 

Runtime.exec or something like that, I don't remember (thankfully :) ) well...


On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:

> 
> On 2012-07-20, at 10:23, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>> Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness. 
> 
> Exactly, Pharo is inherently "unsafe" so to speak, you can
> - remove arbitrary methods
> - add arbitrary new classes
> - change methods at will
> - swap any two objects...
> 
> so adding FFI / OSProcess won't add much to this list :D
> Besisdes, Ruby and Python include shell invocation by default
> 
>> 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 
>>> OSProcess.
>>> 
>>> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
>>> for both sides. Should we vote?
>>> 
>>> According to 
>>> 
>>> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=URL+with+FFI+and+OSProcess&word2=URL+within+VM
>>> 
>>> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> T.
>> 
>