[squeak-dev] Re: Nuking OldSocket, OldSimpleClientSocket and HTTPSocket

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Fri Jun 18 07:29:45 UTC 2010

On 18 June 2010 05:40, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 9:14 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> Seems like a logical move, as to me.
>> This however makes WebClient to be a core part of image, since many
>> facilities, like MC using
>> http to connect with outer world.
>> I am not opposed to it, just have one question: how do you think it
>> should be maintained?
>> a) as an integral part of squeak-trunk
>> b) as a separate package
> There's a difference between maintenance and development. The package should
> be "maintained" in trunk if included in trunk. That means that fixes that
> are required to keep it working are applied to it regardless of the upstream
> situation.
> The package should be "developed" separately though. That means I'll be
> adding new features and merge other changes in its own repository. When a
> new version is good and ready it can be merged into the trunk as
> appropriate.
> Makes sense?

Yes. It requires a bit more work, but in general, i want to see more
and more packages
living in own repositories, and be included into images using automated build.

Ok. Since HTTPSocket will depend on WebClient, then how you plan to
deal with it? Put its implementation
into separate package or merge with WebClient?

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list