goran at krampe.se wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> If I am wanting to deploy a minimal image I do not want to duplicate
>> functionality, SqueakMap is duplicate functionality, because Installer
>> can load from squeakmap and Installer is one class!
>>
>> Ok it may not be the best design or code out there but making it one
>> class was an initial goal for this reason. On the basis that other
>>     
>
> Note that the reason SM is larger is because you get the full domain
> model of SM inside your image.
>   
indeed.
> This means that you can easily write snippets of code interrogating it,
>   
Installer search: 'Author:Bob'.
> you can use it offline (yes you can) etc etc.
>
> AFAIK Installer (while being a nice concept) operates by web scraping,
>   
indeed it does if SM is not loaded.
> which is fine BUT it thus "works around" the SM model and does not work
> offline and does not offer the domain model and does not give you client
> side caching (?) and does also not have code to use the server side
>   
No client side caching indeed, but for building an image for
distribution I am not going to distribute the cache.

I am not saying whether or not SM should be given to end users for all
of these great features. I personally think that SM should be in the
standard distribution.

I am talking specifically about the minimal image that is the stated
deliverable of 3.10. The image from which you can build images for
specific domains. Should this image have SM in it or not? Actually it
shouldn't have universes either, since universes can be loaded from
SqueakMap.

Monticello can go. SUnit-GUI can go too.

Then we might have the actual possibility if loading what we want to load.

For example choosing Monticello 1.5 is actually hindered by the fact
that Monticello is already present in the "3.10 release" image. I have
to jump through hoops in the Universes release of MC1.5 in order to
overwrite MC1.0.

(The update stream should use Installer to load its Monticello packages
in case Monticello is not present)
> cache (I am guessing).
> So even though I like Installer, don't simplify it for people who know
> less - it is NOT a drop in replacement of the SM code.
>   
But it is capable of bootstrapping a minimum image into the form you
want, and many developers will want SM.

For deployment I am happy to build from an Installer script without
Universes or SM.
> But yes, if you WANT to skip all the above parts - then fine, it works.
>
> regards, Göran
>   
If I want those parts it is only one line away...

Installer wsm install: 'SqueakMap'.


all the best

Keith