[Enh] [Star Browser] [Jacaranda] [Connectors] PreliminaryJacaranda/Connectors in Star Browser support

Ken Causey ken at kencausey.com
Tue Jan 21 19:30:42 UTC 2003

On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 13:17, Ned Konz wrote:
> No, you're right.
> However, Squeak's focus so far hasn't been on *un*installing things. 
> This is a hard problem in general. We're instead trying to make an 
> environment where a small image can be combined with selected 
> packages to make the desired composite image.

Granted, I meant to make clear in my original message that I was looking
ahead a bit.  Perhaps too much.

> My packaging of the SB add-ons has been done with this goal in mind: 
> you should be able to come up with a list of packages you want in an 
> image and load them in a well-defined order to get what you want.
> Especially with packages and the additive nature of Squeak image 
> building, I generally look at images as disposable. We have (various) 
> other persistence schemes (projects, change sets, DVS, storage of 
> categories in SB (don't remember if this works yet), etc.) to handle 
> more long-lived artifacts.
> When it's easy to build up new custom images I don't care about 
> unloading packages.

Let's look at another example.  Forget removing packages.  If SBCeleste
is packaged together with Star Browser and Star Browser is installed but
Celeste is not then SBCeleste is not installed I believe.  What if the
user later installs Celeste?  Is the user expected to reinstall Star
Browser to get the SBCeleste functions?  How would the user even know
that such exists?

I don't mean to imply that I consider this a major or pressing issue. 
But I would like to figure out the appropriate place for SBJacaranda. 
At this point it sounds like you or Roel need to pick it up.  Assuming
it's of interest.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list