On Sep 9, 2004, at 10:09 AM, Avi Bryant wrote:

>> What I have found missing is support in the Browser.  The Browser 
>> should, in  my view, have teh notions of a currently active set of 
>> Packages (which should show up to be selected from when I create a 
>> new protocol) and currentPackage into which class extensions and 
>> modifications of existing classes are put by default.
>>
>> Without this, I find that I forget to put my changes in to any 
>> package, or into the right package, or into a spelling error. 
>> Fortunately, the changeset keeps track of the changes that I forget 
>> ;-)
>
> Which brings the thread very neatly back to "incorporating 
> OmniBrowser"...
> Yes, browser support would be great.  That seems like an obvious and 
> easy extension to OB, once it's ready for inclusion in the image.

No, this wouldn't be hard to do, and I'll add it to my list of things 
to implement for the slimmed-down version. However, there is one caveat 
I'd like to bring up; it echoes a discussion I had with the SCG guys 
over on the Monticello list: I don't think modifications of existing 
methods should be moved into the current package by default.

See 
http://mail.wiresong.ca/pipermail/monticello/2004-August/000040.html 
for a more detailed argument in support of this position.

I should also mention that I've made quite a bit of progress in 
cleaning up OmniBrowser for inclusion in the image, and I should have a 
new alpha release fairly soon. There's still some work to do before I'd 
consider it ready, but it's a lot closer.

Colin