Dear Henrik,

	I was reading about the concept of "Delta Modules" on the 
Swiki (at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2063).

	The idea of separating the loading of a DeltaModule into an 
image from the activation of the features in that DelatModule is 
something that I had not thought about before.    I can see this as 
having two benefits.

         (1) A  DeltaModule could be loaded, so that I can browse it
	    and see what it does, using all of the usual tools, without
             having to activate it.  (So this would subsume the
             functionality of the Package Browser.)

         (2) Activation and de-activation might be very much faster than
             loading and unloading.

Are these the only advantages, or are there others?

If these advantages make the separation of loading from activation 
and unloading from deactivation worthwhile, then shouldn't we make 
the same separation for Modules themselves, not just for DeltaModules.

Finally, what is the motivation for introducing DeltaModules in the 
first place?  I can see it as a storage optimization (like using 
diffs in RCS or SCCS rather than storing multiple copies of the same 
stuff), but that does not mean that it needs to be visible to the 
Squeak image side of things.  If it is meant as a communication 
protocol optimization, then it would need to be visible to Squeak, 
since the composing of the base and the delta would have to happen in 
the image.  Is that the reason?

	Andrew