Mac OS X VM (was Re: New VMs)

Aaron reic0024 at d.umn.edu
Tue Jul 3 16:55:38 UTC 2001


Roel Wuyts wrote:

> Regarding the one binary distribution (so that people do not have to move
> the frameworks around): are 'bundles' a solution ? I thought they could be
> used to package an application with its frameworks as (seemingly) one
> application ? That way the VM and its frameworks could be bndled as one
> application, while retaining the frameworks itself, I think.

My understanding is that when the frameworks are included in a single
Framework + App bundle, the frameworks aren't available to the rest of
the system.  This in and of itself isn't totally bad, seeing how usually
only the VM as you
interact with it would use the frameworks.  But as Marcel was saying,
there are a lot of cool things that can be done with the frameworks, so
tying them to the
traditional VM interface (that is, start up an image, interact with it)
would be a shame.

Unless the VM was packaged as an App + Frameworks bundle, users will
still have to move the two Squeak frameworks to ~/Library/Frameworks or
/Library/Frameworks.  A binary only release just wouldn't also include
source
like the current Mac OS X VM distribution does.

Aaron





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list