Hi,

I'm not a fan of the multimedia capabilities of squeak and I don't need
the toys, but I love it as a development platform for my web based
application. So I would prefer an image with all those goodies like
refactoring, unit testing, code completion, comanche, seaside etc but
without the toys.

mue

> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>
>>Hi people!
>>
>>(I am just following this thread loosely)
>>
>>Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just to add an opinion, my benchmark for what should be in a "Full"
>>> image
>>>would be either Squeak3.2-4956, or Squeak3.4-5170.  Basically, I expect
>>> a
>>>"Full" image to have at least everything that was in the 3.2-4956
>>> image. I
>>>don't necessarily mean every class and every method, but at least all
>>> the
>>>major functionality.  I know that occasionally methods are depracated
>>> for
>>>good reason, and that's fine.
>>>
>>>Now, neither of those releases included things like the RB, Monticello,
>>>etc, so while they're nice to have, I wouldn't necessarily expect it in
>>> a
>>>future "Full" image.  I would condsider things like that as developer
>>>"goodies" that could be omitted, but I would still expect the system
>>>browser, compiler, VM construction, PlayWithMe/Worlds of Squeak, EToys
>>>type stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Personally I think we should "keep things simple" so that Full is just
>>Basic + more.
>>Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion, but IMHO we shouldn't remove
>>developer tools in Full that are in Basic.
>>
>
> I think you did misunderstand the discussion. ;-)  Full will most
> definitely be a superset of Basic, I don't think anyone argued against
> that.  It was just a matter of whether Full should be "Basic + more", or
> "Basic + a lot more".  For example, should the Refactoring Browser go in
> Full?  It's not in Basic at the moment.
>
> To address Dean's point, the future Full images should have (at a
> minimum) all of the major functionality of previous images such as
> Squeak3.2-4956, etc.  The only exception I can think of are things that
> we specifically decide are obsolete and then remove, such as PWS.
>
> As to whether we should have new additional stuff in the 3.7 Full image,
> Diego made an excellent case in previous postings for adding new media
> content to the Full image.  And Stephane and Noury (and myself) have
> argued that adding additional developer tools to the Full image is also
> a good idea.  We don't need to add every half-baked developer goodie
> ever written, but major tools like the RB would be great to have in
> there by default.  (We could also have a separate Developer-Full image
> with these extra tools, but that would require an additional maintainer
> and I think it's conceptually simpler to have just one true kitchensink
> Full image.)
>
> If we don't get the "right" number of developer tools in the Full image
> for 3.7, I'd consider that a temporary problem, since this is the first
> time we've considered adding these.  We can work on getting it right for
> 3.8.  I doubt that someone will gripe if something's left out that was
> never in Full before anyway.
>
> (Another alternative is to restrict ourselves to adding developer
> goodies only to Basic, but I don't think we want to bloat Basic too much
> with things like the RB... Basic should be reasonably lightweight.)
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
**
** Frank Mueller / Oldenburg / Germany
**
** frank at mweb.de    http://www.mweb.de
**