<html><head></head><body>
<p>I prefer the dependency model supported by .mcm files, Monticello
Configuration Maps. There has been some recent work to them adding
author and comments. Monticello Configuration Maps allows linking
of a specific version of dependent packages, across multiple
repositories. Evidently there is a way to specify the latest
version, but I just link/update specific versions. There is so
much I don't know!</p>
<p>My thoughts regarding Metacello are that it solves the problem
with side effect complexities, such as #baseline and such
messages. It builds subclass to be versioned in turn, with all of
the needs. I get it the flex of writing custom protocol for a
Metacello subclass. The same is achieved relying on the #startUp:
protocols on real domain objects of a robust role. To my
experience, Metacello is way too verbose. <br/>
<br/>
TSTTCPW, seems reflected in Monticello maps design. How hard could
it be to provide support for them in Pharo? And Tonel? Good
Christ!</p>
<p>Kindly, rabbit<br/>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/16/20 10:07 AM, Stephan Eggermont
wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:04F64B95-C4BA-4CB9-A92D-7BFEE0FC2823@stack.nl">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
Metacello works well across Gemstone, Squeak and Pharo<br/>
<br/>
<div dir="ltr">Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br/>
<blockquote type="cite">Op 16 mei 2020 om 15:33 heeft Robert
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:robert.withers@pm.me"><robert.withers@pm.me></a> het volgende geschreven:<br/>
<br/>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>
<p>Hi Shaping,<br/>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/16/20 8:47 AM, Shaping
wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:029e01d62b80$3152da50$93f88ef0$@uurda.org">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Can you tell me about those
efforts? I know the VM is one, maybe the biggest. What
else do Squeak folks work on?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> I also
understand why the developers of the new Pharo
preferences tree did not like to invest the same effort
in Squeak. What incentive would they have?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Make all features
(GUIs/frameworks) loadable into a new, mostly empty
image.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>
</p>
<p>Andso, here we have the biggest challenge to doing such
sharing. You say all features should be loadable into
either image. The issue is that Pharo has driven forwards
in creating new load formats, such as Tonel. I tried to
load up the Tonel format, but failed. I couldn't get
distracted from my core work.<br/>
</p>
<p>NO EFFORTS have been made to have Squeak able to load
such formats, and the Pharo folks have deprecated the
existing Montecello load format, from a long time in
Squeak. In particular, it is not possible to load a
Monticello Configuration Map in Pharo and Squeak can't
load the newer formats Pharo has created. So there is no
commonality of load systems between Squeak/Pharo. It
totally sucks. That is step number one to having features
co-loadable, common load systems. I recall someone from
the Pharo side being disparaging to the Monticello load
format, so there is no interested in making features
cross-image. NONE. ZERO! It is a hard fork. So sad. :(<br/>
</p>
<p>K, r<br/>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kindly,
Robert</pre>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kindly,
Robert</pre>
</body></html>