--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VA Smalltalk" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/va-smalltalk/-/-2Gu31klJEIJ.
To post to this group, send email to va-sma...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to va-smalltalk...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/va-smalltalk?hl=en.
I have always felt the complications of IC packaging are more hassle
than they're worth. The biggest problem I have with IC packaging is
all the version checks it does to attempt to guarantee I have a
"consistent" set of ICs. Even if I package a backward compatible base
IC, dependent ICs have to be repackaged to work with it. I would love
for an Instantiations person (I almost said IBM) to tell me that's not
true. Thus I have always packaged single monolothic headless images
for my servers.
All that said, however, IC packaging might simplify packaging a
Seaside app. This is because the reduction rule for ICs is "No
reduction". Because by its nature an IC can't know which methods and
classes will be used, it doesn't any throw away. Memory is much more
generous on modern machines, so the lack of reduction shouldn't really
be an issue, especially as IC packaged apps can share program code
between processes.
--
Doug swartz
Monday, September 26, 2011, 2:03:14 PM, you wrote:
> By working in this area I wished to have a non GUI to create the ICs
> without user interaction. Any idea here ?
I've occasionally thought it would be really useful to be able
to package a headless image from a single mouse click, or from a
command line. It would be great to enable continuous integration. In
the approach I was thinking of you would have to build the passive
image, load the code into it, then do the packaging.
It would certainly be doable, but it's just always seemed like more
work than I wanted to bite off.
--
Doug Swartz