Smalltalk/JVM Licensing

Avi Bryant avi.bryant at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 15:44:06 UTC 2005


On Apr 11, 2005 5:22 PM, Steven Swerling <sswerling at yahoo.com> wrote:

> BTW, I would concur w/ the person who said that seaside would be a very
> good target application for porting, it would have straightforward
> practical implications for any smalltalker wishing to rent a little
> bandwidth on one of the many JSP app servers available.

As has been discussed a bit on comp.lang.smalltalk, it's unlikely that
Smalltalk/JVM will be able to  support Seaside: if it uses the JVM
stack, rather than its own MethodContext objects, it won't work.  In
some ways I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear otherwise, but on the
other hand, using the JVM stack is probably (ignoring debugging) the
right choice for any other application.

Some of the earliest versions of Seaside could in fact run without
continuation support, with some of the nicer features disabled.  One
thing I may look at in the next couple of months is how to bring back
this option.  It would be nice to be able to say "you can run it, but
you won't get the full functionality" rather than simply "no" when
people ask about ports to platforms like VAST or Smalltalk/X or,
maybe, Smalltalk/JVM.

As for renting bandwidth on a JSP server: can't we provide our own
equivalent, using Squeak instead of the JVM?  How much demand is there
for such a thing, and how much would people be willing to pay for
what?

Avi



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list