Bill, Perhaps what I wrote wasn't so clear and I thought I'd put a context when I commented that my ramblings were not about the 'systems' parts which is how I see your observation, and I agree on that. In fact, save some specifics which a plugin makes sense, probably doing in Smalltalk could make the platform more competitive and not only another 'weird syntax' for gluing some other's else libraries.
Now, what I was thinking about we have not resources is the big echo systems we need to connect to, for example large packages (ERP/CRM systems), nowadays a hot subject is "Sharepoint integration" but there many others. I believe we should not attempt to write competitive replacements for these as we don't have the resources (not only technical but marketing as well). -- Cesar Rabak Em 31/12/2009 00:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bsch...@anest.ufl.edu> escreveu: Cesar, Sometimes rewriting is exactly the right thing to do. For example, Object Arts wrapped the Microsoft XML library. First, there is the question of untrusted input and MS binaries (yikes!!!), but also, any time bad input went into it, it would fire off an error with no indication of where it got into trouble. For some reason, MS did not think to take an IStream pointer that would have allowed one to check the position. For an http client, OA again wrapped MS binaries, complete with the typical punishing timeouts under MS control, and being hobbled if IE had been set (or set itself) to work offline. Dolphin is a wonderful product, but users would have been better served with home-grown code in those cases. Bottom line: I think we should rewrite when it makes sense to do so, and wrap just about anything that makes sense for interoperability. Clearly there is a lot to wrap, and priorities must be set, as it will often fall on an individual to do the dirty work. SSL is a no-brainer. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of csra...@bol.com.br Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:59 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Developer guide ... ? Bill, I think you nailed it precisely! Although all 'systems' working in Pharo will not be enough if we cannot connect and integrate with the leading technologies that we cannot afford to displace/emulate/write in Pharo smalltalk. -- Cesar Rabak Em 30/12/2009 22:54, Schwab,Wilhelm K escreveu: Levente, I'll give you a pass on RPC, on SOAP for sure, and _almost_ on CORBA :) However, a culture of dismissing important things as crap lead us to a point approaching 15 years into Squeak's existence where it does not have ready access to SSL. I know about stunnel, but that is more cheat than fix. Pharo needs to embrace the worthy or we will still be on the fringe 15 years from now, and that would be tragic. Bill _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
