Hi Tim,

> >     As I see it, the disadvantage in using MobVM are:
> You left out  a pretty important one (at least, as of last time I 
> looked at the code) which is that you depend pretty heavily 
> on Windows functionality. 

    I would count that as an advantage ;-)

    After all, these parts of the codes are platform specific.

    So, with your pernission :-) :

    "Advantages in using MobVM are:

        blah blah blah

        ...Windows functionality is beautifully leveraged...  ;-)
        ... "
    
    Seriously, I don't think that's much of a problem for other
    platforms to provide the functionality to access ini file 
    like under Windows. They can use properties file instead.

    Then, again, ini file has been used in Squeak since the 
    dinosaurs still wandering around ;-)

    That's said, I vaguely recall, there is even a cross platform 
    lib to handle ini file.

> I'm sure the concept could be applied cross platform 
> (well as long as the target can actually handle dynamic loading at all) 

    I guess Unix, Mac and WinCE do support that.
    Does Acorn support dynamic loading ? 
    (and any other platforms that currently have 
    Squeak port and do not support dynamic loading  ?)

> IIRC there are a lot of places where the code is manualy 
> hacked about that would need cleaning up.

    Your help is very much appreciated.

    Also, I found that the macro 'XNAME' is very convenient,
    please consider to restore it and use it consistently 
    in all plugins so that one can choose either to work 
    with fully qualified exported names or not. 

    Should macros to access the interpreter proxy be placed 
    in a common header file ?

    BTW, how is the DisplayPlugin you mentioned before, 
    should I change MobVM WindowPlugin to DisplayPlugin ?

    It's more generic and neutral. Squeak doesn't have to 
    display to a window, remember, we are in the 
    Morphic world :-)

    Besides, WindowPlugin maybe confusing, making people 
    think that plugin will provide Windows functionality ;-)

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: "Tim Rowledge" <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Which plugins?


> 
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:42  PM, PhiHo Hoang wrote:
> 
> > Jason,
> >
> >> What are the tradeoffs pro/con of using
> >> MobVM vs. the standard VM?
> >
> >     As I see it, the disadvantage in using MobVM are:
> You left out  a pretty important one (at least, as of last time I 
> looked at the code) which is that you depend pretty heavily on Windows 
> functionality. IIRC there are a lot of places where the code is manualy 
> hacked about that would need cleaning up.
> 
> I'm sure the concept could be applied cross platform (well as long as 
> the target can actually handle dynamic loading at all) with some more 
> work. After all, I claimed it could back in '95 when trying to persuade 
> my  then-boss at ParcPlace...
> 
> tim
> -- 
> tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
> 
>