<br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/7/20 Esteban Lorenzano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com" target="_blank">estebanlm@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness.<br>
<br>
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...<br>
I think putting this solution in vm is a poor solution, that prevents adaptation in time... just like a mennonite community, btw :)<br>
<br>
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.<br></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>+1 to use FFI</div><div>This time, we will add a plugin for URL, next time we will add another one for XXX, and YYYY.</div><div>Esteban is right, adding more and more plugins is not the right thing to do IMHO since fewer people can maintain it compared to image side code.</div>
<div>Moreover, we must interact easily/fastly with existing world (OS, libraries, ...).</div><div><br></div><div>For the subscription of the VM to <a href="http://www.weightwatchers.fr">www.weightwatchers.fr</a> ;-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Luc</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
best,<br>
Esteban<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
>> I disagree in general with extend vm complexity to add things that can >perfectly work in smalltalk or using a FFI package...<br>
><br>
> Saying you can do this using FFI/OSProcess is a weak argument.<br>
> "fopen" could be in the Smalltalk image as well - but we have it<br>
> in the VM.<br>
><br>
> We may include both into Pharo - so nobody has to load FFI + ConfigurationOfExternalWebbrowser.<br>
><br>
> But I dont think that is the route for Squeak, Cuis, ...<br>
> These Smalltalks may profit from an VM implementation without<br>
> making them "unsafe" or more bound to native OS with FFI and<br>
> OSProcess.<br>
><br>
> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons<br>
> for both sides. Should we vote?<br>
><br>
> According to<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=URL+with+FFI+and+OSProcess&word2=URL+within+VM" target="_blank">http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=URL+with+FFI+and+OSProcess&word2=URL+within+VM</a><br>
><br>
> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
> T.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>