> > If they need ProtoObject, they will depend on some module that
 > > installs ProtoObject.
 >
 > So, if they started from your minimal object memory that would be a
 > recompile of the entire class hierarchy, right?

	Strictly speaking, no, since ProtoObject doesn't add any variables. And 
that's convenient, since it means you don't have to load the 
ClassBuilder module first. :)  (ClassBuilder is also absent from the 
minimal object memory.)

 > For easy-entry into the Spoon and backward compatibility, I hope that
 > a "public" minimal object memory would include ProtoObject...

	Actually, I think very few applications will really need ProtoObject. I 
myself will never have a need for it. It's there to support persistence, 
which I support in a different way with very small, live object memories 
which send remote messages to each other. But nothing will stop people 
from making their own starting-point object memories available with 
various modules included.

	That's the beauty of taking on the creation of a minimal system: the 
decisions about what to leave and what to take out are pretty simple 
(take out everything that isn't needed for the system to start and 
extend itself). I get to leave it to others how urgent it is to reload 
the removed things. Some people will think it's very important to get 
Morphic reloaded, others won't, etc.


-C

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]