Hi. I saw on Lukas's Esug presentation that Monticello 2 is recommended for Seaside development because it is supported on all of the Smalltalks that Seaside is available on. I was not aware of this; I thought Monticello 2 was still in the alpha phase, didn't yet support remote repositories, and only worked on Squeak. I must have missed something. Where can I find out more about Monticello 2?
Here is what I am referring to:
Slide 58: http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/seaside-presentation-esug2008
Minutes 28-31 of the talk: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&printTitl...
Hi. I saw on Lukas's Esug presentation that Monticello 2 is recommended for Seaside development because it is supported on all of the Smalltalks that Seaside is available on. I was not aware of this; I thought Monticello 2 was still in the alpha phase, didn't yet support remote repositories, and only worked on Squeak. I must have missed something. Where can I find out more about Monticello 2?
No, I did not say that we use Monticello 2 or that it is supported on any platform. I said, that it is the future and that we would like all the Smalltalk platforms to port and support it, so that we can easily merge and load extensions and patches coming from anywhere.
Right now this it is nearly impossible (and in practice it maybe happened once) to get back extensions or fixes from VisualWorks, Dolphin and GST. It happens on an almost daily bases with GemStone, because they have a full port of Monticello 1.
Then I added, that I do not suggest to port Monticello 1 now, because Monticello 1 was not designed with portability in mind and probably very hard to integrate into different platforms. Monticello 2 is designed to support different platforms.
Lukas
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:01:49PM +0100, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Then I added, that I do not suggest to port Monticello 1 now, because Monticello 1 was not designed with portability in mind and probably very hard to integrate into different platforms. Monticello 2 is designed to support different platforms.
I don't know why you say this, so let's examine what is required to port Monticello 1, and compare it to Monticello 2.
Reading a package: - Monticello 1: - Reading a zip: probably available - Reading the snapshot.st file: Contained within Monticello; portable - Reading the snapshot.bin file: Requires a port of DataStream. Not so easy - Reading the other files: contained within Monticello; portable - Monticello 2: - ?
Loading a package: - Monticello 1: - Provide a loader for each MCDefinition type - Monticello 2: - Provide a loader for each MDVersion type
Snapshotting a package: - Monticello 1: - Create a PackageInfo that can scan this system - Monticello 2: - Create a Slice that can scan this system
Saving a package: - Same portability status as Reading a package
Other portability issues, shared by MC 1 and 2: - Traits are specific to Squeak - Namespaces are specific to VisualWorks
All in all, I don't see a huge difference between the theoretical portability of MC1 and 2. I'd need to know more about the format of MC2 packages though
I'm curious why you say this. Please explain.
release@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Lukas Renggli -
Matthew Fulmer