[Vm-dev] Request: VM support for opening browser

[Esteban Lorenzano]

Well... I also disagree with the argument of safeness. 

For me, saying that is like saying a mennonite community is safer just because they are isolated. They are not. And in any case, the price payed for that isolation is to stay in the 18th century...
I think putting this solution in vm is a poor solution, that prevents adaptation in time... just like a mennonite community, btw :)

Frankly... most important question about having it as a plugin is "who will maintain it?"... because problem is not adding a plugin, problem is keep it in time, and match changing outside technologies. 

best,
Esteban

On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:

> 
>> I disagree in general with extend vm complexity to add things that can >perfectly work in smalltalk or using a FFI package...
> 
> Saying you can do this using FFI/OSProcess is a weak argument.
> "fopen" could be in the Smalltalk image as well - but we have it
> in the VM.
> 
> We may include both into Pharo - so nobody has to load FFI + ConfigurationOfExternalWebbrowser. 
> 
> But I dont think that is the route for Squeak, Cuis, ...
> These Smalltalks may profit from an VM implementation without
> making them "unsafe" or more bound to native OS with FFI and 
> OSProcess.
> 
> How can we proceed in the discussion? There are pros and cons
> for both sides. Should we vote?
> 
> According to 
> 
> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=URL+with+FFI+and+OSProcess&word2=URL+within+VM
> 
> "URL within VM" seems to be the winner ;)
> 
> Thanks
> T.