> To support using Squeak in embedded systems and memory-constrained ones like Newtons, I'm exploring the idea of making a headless version of Squeak with minimal footprint that can be remotely interacted with from a headed Squeak via TCP/IP. Tools such as these might also be useful for debugging "headless" Squeak images embedded in applications like web browsers or web servers. >
I would like to see Squeak images embedded in robots in your list.
> 6. Can people think of other useful reasons to have such tools?
I have found the equivalent VisualWORKS and ControlWORKSs tools which we use for development of semiconductor processing equipment software to be extremely valuable. Most of the time, we can debug embedded Smalltalk code (embedded OS is VxWorks) on the fly without even having to shut down the equipment. In this case, the embedded images are stored on the NT frontend system and loaded into the embedded systems during bootup. Debugging is performed on the NT frontend. It is a distributed application with at least 3 images involved between the NT workstation and the embedded systems. I would really like to see this capability available in Squeak.
>open a TCP/IP connection (or maybe just plain serial) to that VM from a
Support TCP/TP and you can speak to just about the whole world. I have found debugging and expect to find testing of factory interfaces much nicer via ethernet than having to attach a serial cable to equipment. Especially if the equipment I want to attach to is elsewhere.
I am sorry that I cannot offer any advice on the Squeak side of the problem being a novice. If you have any questions that might be answered by my experience with the semiconductor software please feel free to ask.
--
Jerome E. Garcia jegarcia@adventurousmind.com
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org