Resources (was RE: File URI)

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Thu Apr 29 13:21:55 UTC 2004


Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2004, at 3:19 AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Yes, of course a proper robust lightweight and base image standard OODB
> > would be what I *really want*. Magma is pretty close to that - though I
> > am not sure how intrusive it is in the image. GOODS is IMHO 
> > disqualified
> > because it is not pure Squeak and I don't think it qualifies as
> > lightweight either.
> 
> Just a note on the relative "weight" of Magma and GOODS: the Magma 
> client is 185k of zipped code, the GOODS client is 16k of zipped code.  
> So, talking just about the clients, Magma is about an order or 
> magnitude larger.  This could be for a lot of reasons: Magma may well 
> have lots more test cases, for example.  But I did want to point out 
> that, assuming you have a server running somewhere, the GOODS client is 
> a very light dependency.

Yes, I am aware of that. But I am talking about a full local
implementation, not just the client part. :)

> Avi

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list