2008/5/11, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
> Jerome Peace wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Matthew wrote:
> > > I wrote a script that removes traits from a 3.9 or 3.8 image:
> > > http://installer.pbwiki.org/UnloadTraits
> > >
> > > In an image with Installer (preferably LPF), do:
> > > Installer install: 'UnloadTraits'
> > > <...>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ok. Then what does this give you?
> >
> >
> >
>  It gives you an image, a) without traits, and b) with the old class format.
>
>  The aim being to 1) enable folks with code that relies on the old format to
> move up to 3.10 should they so desire 2) Satisfy those who dont like the
> existing traits based traits implementation and would like to have something
> simpler and 3) Provide a starting point for a future simpler traits
> implementation if anyone wants to write it.

What about people who need traits?

Cheers
Philippe


> > If you had such an image could you use it as a basis for development?
> >
> >
>  If you take 3.10 and remove traits, its roughly the same as a 3.8 image
> with more toys and bug fixes of 3.9 and 3.10.
>
>  A future development for MC1.6+ will be to enable MC packages which include
> traits to automatically load flattened into a non-trait image. i.e. traits
> fans can use them as a design/code reuse tool publishing their work as a
> package that anyone can use.
>
> > How would you update it?
> >
> >
>  In comparison to which current practice?
>
> > How could you revert an update to it?
> >
> >
> >
>  In comparison to which current practice?
>
>  Reverting is part of the DS concept.
>
>  Sake/Packages has a Package-level unload function which could work well if
> appropriately configured.
>
> > Basically what I am asking is could this be squeak 4.0 and a basis for
> future development?
> >
>  If someone does the complementary "TraitsLoad", then
> 3.11-minimal-load-what-you-need-image can be published
> without traits. However doing this would prevent traits being used
> unflattened in the kernel, so it may be better to leave traits in, with a
> "flatten all traits and remove traits" script or sake-task.
>
> > Or would the image produced just be a curiosity that could not be
> developed further.
> >
> > This is different from the question of should it be. That also is
> important to answer. But the "should"
> > question is a political one. I'm just looking for the technical answer to
> the "could" questions.
> >
> >
>  Where there is a will there is a way...  subject to further tools support.
>
>  regards
>
>  Keith
>
>
>
>
>