Hi PhiHo,

I don't consider any of the disadvantages you mention to be really that
important. The major problematic points I see are:

* Setup issues. Can MobVM *always* figure out what the "right" way to
access stuff on the web is?! Regardless of platform, browser setup etc?!
What about fire walls, proxies and all of the other "niceties" of a
modern computer setup?!

* No "offline access". If you haven't accessed a specific plugin while
you were online you won't get it. Your ISP just had a power outage?! Uh,
oh...

* The possibility of "dll hell". Even today we have problems with what
(external) plugin exactly is used under which conditions. This problem
grows exponentially with the number of plugins you have to worry about.

* The possibility of versioning conflicts (does MobVM actually have any
versioniong?!), both in the terms of "what plugin belongs to what VM
version" as well as "what plugin does require a specific other plugin
version".

The key reason why I am concerned about the above is that no newbie will
be able to understand "what went wrong" if any of the above cause a
problem. And not even you may... I had this problem recently with a few
people where "Squeak crashed" and after a while we found that there were
lingering plugins from some old Squeak installation being used...

I think that the "impossibility to get anything wrong" clearly outweighs
the (perceived or real) disadvantages of the "classic everything
builtin" VM. That's a personal opinion of course.

Cheers,
  - Andreas


> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of PhiHo Hoang
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:42 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Which plugins?
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> > What are the tradeoffs pro/con of using
> > MobVM vs. the standard VM?
> 
>     As I see it, the disadvantage in using MobVM are:
> 
>     1/- It takes more disk space.
> 
>     2/- It is somewhat slower if you use separate InterpreterPlugin,
>         ObjectMemoryPlugin and PrimitivesPlugin
> 
>     3/- Not as much field tested as the standard VM.
> 
>     The advantages are:
> 
>     1/- It takes less disk space, smaller foot print at run 
> time if you
>         need only a subset of the bundled plugins buitlin the 
> standard VM.
> 
>     2/- More flexible you can run both VI3 and VI4 with MobVM.
>         Other image formats should be easily accomodated..
> 
>     3/- MobVM is supposedly 100% compatible with the standard VM.
>         It can do anything that the standard VM can do, but 
> not the other
> way
>         around.
> 
>     4/- It's easier to maintain and innovate.
>         The work load can be easily distributed, because it 
> is very modular.
> 
>     Actually, you and others should try both MobVM and
>     the standard VM and let us know what you think.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     PhiHo.
> 
> 
>