Magma code repository (was Re: [squeak-dev] Character>to: was changed and breaks ObjectsTool)

Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r at
Sun Jul 21 21:39:25 UTC 2013

You might do WebClient + SqueakSSL. That's at least going to give you a prototype real fast to vet the idea. 

On Jul 21, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at> wrote:

>> Chris, I'm sure you've been asked enough times before that you have some canned response you can point us to - how *exactly* would one personally make use of Magma as a repository. I'd prefer a tediously pedantic, explain everything in terms a complete dimwit can follow (believe me, I can play one of those) with more examples than you could imagine being needed by a Zabriskan Fontema[1].
> -----------
> Yes, I still need to update my configs for the SS3 changeover.  And I
> want it loading on the latest trunk.  Soon.
> -------------
>> As a possibly more widely useful alternative to running a local copy, would it be reasonable to set up a network accessible repository? I'm thinking here of a read-only (or at least almost-only) system that can answer *all* the versions of a method (and other Useful Things Of Assorted Nature) via some easy to implement net api. Run it on a decently powerful machine and load up absolutely every version of every method that has ever been in a main image, and maybe even every package that has been published?
> ------------
> Read-only might be doable, because it wouldn't require individual
> user-accounts.  Some job on the server could commit the new MC
> packages as they came in.
> The challenge might be with connecting to the read-only Magma
> repository across the open Internet.  I've long wanted to try to
> address this but there are so many ways and things to learn; I could
> actually use some guidance from the folks on this list on the best
> approach to handle this.  Magma currently talks with a proprietary,
> binary protocol and has not been sufficiently hardened from attack.
> Could its binary protocol simply be tunneled through SSL (SSH?) and
> would that be sufficient?  Would it be helpful at all for Magma to be
> able to talk over HTTP?  Not necessarily for consumption via
> web-browser, but just to be more.. "conventional" across the
> Internet..?  Does that matter?
> I would love to try the experiment Tim suggested, and the DB-side is
> done and ready, but what is the best approach for the connectivity
> across the internet?

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list