Swan, Dean wrote:

> Colin,
>
> 	I agree that code management is one of the problems
> that is trying to be addressed by the modules effort(s).
>
>
> >So again, I don't think I understand your concern. Are you saying that
> >you prefer the SM/DVS route to 3.3 modules?
>
>
> Well, I guess that is more or less what I'm saying.
>
>
> >How do you define "modular" and "monolithic?"
>
>
> I save an image, and when I restart a Squeak VM, it comes back with
> *everything* exactly the way I left it.  I call that "monolithic".
>
> Your point that keeping multiple Squeak images around is a
> "Good Thing" is significant (IMO).  Squeak is a "virtual
> machine" and running multiple virtual machines on one "real"
> machine with different images in each is a perfectly
> reasonable thing to do.
>
> I start up a Sqeak VM and it goes hunting all over my disk (and
> possibly the network) looking for bits and pieces that it thinks
> it's supposed to have to build an image before I can do anything
> useful.  That would be one kind of "modular", and I wouldn't like
> it.

I don't think that's what's being said though.  Colin (and others) is 
saying that you need to be able to easily add and remove pieces from 
your image.  We're not talking about running the pieces from outside the 
image, having to go looking for them on the Net or whatever.  The desire 
is to have a way to easily control what is in your image so when you 
save, everything is not only the way you left it, but the way you *want* it.

Julian

-- 
julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)