On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Benoit St-Jean <bstjean at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Colin,
>
> Yeah, your idea makes sense, somehow...  But adding a layer, when it's
> clear that Pharo is deconstructing the "Squeak base" (its ancestor) piece
> by piece will make it hard.  At the rate at which they are deleting "squeak
> stuff" in the Pharo image, we'll all spend our time coding for this
> "compatibility/portability" layer.  Besides, can you imagine the mess that
> will result for projects that are cross dialect and that are already
> providing compatibility layers (Glorp, Seaside, etc) ???  Two layers of
> compatibility, really ???
>
> To paraphrase Fleetwood Mac, "you can go your own way" I'd tell the Pharo
> people.  I find it funny that Squeak's child (Pharo) is farther away from
> Squeak than VisualWorks can be these days...
>


 Well, I wasn't thinking of a Pharo compatibility layer, so much as a
repository where we could store the "Squeak port" for packages that aren't
developed natively on Squeak. (By "ports tree," I meant FreeBSD's ports
system.)  So, for example, the Xtreams port from VisualWorks could live
there, the Seaside port from Pharo, and so on.

And of course, Frank is quite right, no technical solution like this is a
substitute for communication with developers in other communities. But if
we have a strategy for handling things like this, it can make that
communication smoother.

Just a thought.

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20121220/19622707/attachment.htm