"Dan Ingalls" <Dan at SqueakLand.org> wrote:

> >    1/- Is it appropriate to discuss about the 'MobVM' now or should I
wait.
>
> Why wait?

    Because I think there are lot of things in the VM depends on the way the
whole Squeak is architect-'ed' and not sure if it is advantageous to have
discussion on the VM in sync with discussion of the architecture of Squeak.

> >    2/- Is it approriate to do so within the [Modules] tag or should it
be
> >elsewhere ?
>
> I think it should be elsewhere.  An appropriate tag would probably be
[Squeak Installer].

    That's it !!! It's the 'Squeak Installer'. Thanks for the suggestion,
Dan.

    The micro kernel (with the help of a few bootstrap plugins) dynamically
installs other plugins on demand just enough to support a preconfigured
image built from a set of modules. All in memory.

     One thing that bothers me though. People used to think of Squeak.exe
(for Windows) as the Squeak VM. Now it's promoted to Squeak Installer and
then the Squeak VM now becomes invisible (dynamically assembled).

    Another thought, maybe, the micro kernel will retain the identity as a
VM. The Squeak Installer will be actually a truly micro kernel image
requiring just the micro kernel, PlugManPlugin (Plugin Manager),
ModManPlugin (Module Manager), PlatformPlugin (platform dependent utility
routines), ZipPlugin and a bootstrap interpreter with just enough of
bytecodes and named primitives to support the Squeak Installer to install
the rest (including an approriate interpreter for the target image).

    Maybe, the PlatformPlugin is not necessary at all. If the SqueakFFIPrims
is used instead, then all platform functionalities should be available from
within the Squeak Installer image.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Ingalls" <Dan at SqueakLand.org>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Modules] Introducing MobVM (was Components or Modules??)


> "PhiHo Hoang" <phiho.hoang at home.com> wrote...
>
> >   OTOH,  I also like the idea of 1 file install Squeak. This is truly 1
> >file, not a zip, tar or self extract archive of any sort. It is truly one
> >Windows executable, Squeak.exe, the 'MobVM'.
> >
> >    I have a couple of questions to the list (especially the creator of
the
> >[Modules] tag) :
> >
> >    1/- Is it appropriate to discuss about the 'MobVM' now or should I
wait.
>
> Why wait?
>
> >    2/- Is it approriate to do so within the [Modules] tag or should it
be
> >elsewhere ?
>
> I think it should be elsewhere.  An appropriate tag would probably be
[Squeak Installer].
>
> We had some interesting discussion about this almost two years ago, and I
think a fair amount of it wound up on the Squeak swiki as a "SqC project".
Little was done thereafter, except that the ability to compress and
decompress multiple files has been added to squeak since then.
>
> From the client's point of view, it's pretty simple already to get Squeak
as a self extracting archive.  I do this on a Mac, and it comes as just one
file, is well compressed for the download, and expands into a convenient
folder.
>
> Most of the motivation for a Squeak installer was to make life easier for
the folks who put out a release.  If the clients already have a squeak VM,
then the release could be packaged as a single file, that would be the *same
for every platform*.  This means that maintaining any given version amounts
to only a set of VMs for each platform (which we require now), and one other
file that is a Squeak-compressed and managed combination image and
compressed changes etc.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> - Dan
> --
>
>