Indeed, Marcel, the wrapper is exactly what I described that I would like.
Nice work (I'll play some more with it tonight I hope).


On 04/07/01 15:19, "Marcel Weiher" <marcel at metaobject.com> wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2001, at 10:48  Uhr, Roel Wuyts wrote:
> 
>> I *really* hate installers.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> [reasons snipped]
> 
>>  Also,  it means that MacOS-X would be the only mainstream
>> OS where Squeak requires an installer, and I thought MacOS-X was
>> supposed to
>> really shine in that respect :-)
> 
> Well, drag-installing with the new 3.0.4 should live up to that.
> 
>> PS: Marcel (or anybosy else who knows, of course): does it work when the
>> frameworks are alongside the application (is './' part of the loopup
>> path?).
> 
> Nope.  You could probably add that using the same mechanism currently
> used to find frameworks inside the app-wrapper, but why would you want
> to if you can put them in the wrapper?
> 
>> Because of course I can live with a setup where you can keep everything
>> in
>> one directory if it's only for 'local' use, and where you move this to
>> other
>> places if you want to make it available for other apps ?
> 
> The app wrapper *is* this directory.  Makes moving stuff outside a
> little more arduous, but is much better at keeping everything tidy and
> consistent.
> 
>> PS2: Is there work going for a Squeak shell ? Now there's something
>> that I
>> would really like... Maybe enough to start a Camp Smalltalk or
>> SourceForge
>> project. Other people that are interested in this ?
> 
> You mean for something like this:
> 
> ----- tinybench.sqsh -----
> #!/usr/local/bin/sqsh
> #
> 1 tinyBenchmarks.
> 
> ?
> 
> Marcel
> 

--
Roel Wuyts                           Software Composition Group
Roel.Wuyts at iam.unibe.ch         University of Bern, Switzerland
Board member of the European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org