[Win32] VM Update for 2.7/2.8

Stephan Rudlof sr at evolgo.de
Wed May 24 14:42:57 UTC 2000


"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
> 
> >Finally, a little survey: How do you guys think about distributing a 'fat'
> >VM - that is a VM that has all the plugins builtin so that no extra plugin
> >DLLs are needed?! It would reduce the chance of accidentally using an
> >outdated plugin and possibly make redistribution a bit easier. Do you care?!
> >If so, let me know. I'm your (not so) humble servant ;-)
> 
> I've always been of the view that plugins should be placed in a
> blessed folder, as is done with most other pluggable applications.
> Perhaps one named "Plugins"?

This sounds good to me.

But for the standard distribution I would suggest to
- distribute all plugins used in the distributed image;
- check for existence of one of these plugins at - at least - first
startup, to
	- give the user a warning, if the installation is wrong (plugin not
found),
		-> if he deletes plugins later, it's his own risc.
 
> While a single, fat, application would reduce the chance of
> accidentally using an outdated plugin, it likewise reduces the chance
> of updating the interpreter by seperately compiling a new replacement
> plugin, or of permitting a user to delete those plugins they may not
> desire.

This is true. But for - most - users without the ability to compile
VM/plugins it is difficult to install new/updated modules (compiled
plugins).


Idea: What about installing an update server for platform specific
modules?

Then it would be possible to
- put updated modules into the update stream!
- End users don't have to search for compiled modules at different
locations in the net.

Since failing of calls to not existing modules should be fast in VM 2.8,
there shouldn't be a problem, if
- *new* modules arise in the update stream after the installing
changesets,
- module *updates* for the different platforms aren't at the same time.

Only the interface has to be consistent with older versions for the same
VM (backward compatible).

Comments?

> Since these features are among the primary purposes of plugins, I'd
> vote against fat binaries, provided that there is some useful place
> to put plugins other than the application directory.

I second this. 

Greetings,

Stephan

> --
> Andrew C. Greenberg             acg at netwolves.com
> V.P. Eng., R&D,                 813.885.2779 (office)
> Netwolves Corporation           813.885.2380 (facsimile)
> www.netwolves.com

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list