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.


On 02/07/01 14:34, "Marcel Weiher" <marcel at metaobject.com> wrote:

> 
> On Saturday, June 30, 2001, at 05:54  Uhr, doug way wrote:
>>> Both Squeak.framework and SqueakAppKit.framework.
>> 
>> Sorry, this was my problem... not sure how I missed this.  Once I moved
>> SqueakAppKit.framework over, double-clicking the VM worked, and I could
>> open the .image file from within CocoaSqueak.
> 
> Great!
> 
>> The feel of CocoaSqueak is slower than running Squeak in the classic
>> environment, but the benchmarks are about the same between the two, so
>> I guess the display updating or events must be a bit slower at this
>> point?
> 
> Yes, so far to both, it seems.  Which CocoaSqueak version are you
> using?  The most recent version (3.03) made some advances in terms of
> display speed, at least in 16 bit mode.  The Squeak event system still
> doesn't deal all that well with being a passive client of OS events.
> 
>>  Otherwise, it seemed to work pretty well... I didn't run into any
> crashes (except for the known quit-from-world-menu problem).
> 
> I should really address that ASAP...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marcle
>