well... I read it before and the answer I sent to the remark of eliot is still valid. Did you realize that we think about package since we started to work on 3.9, so having a system like metacello was really what we wanted because packages without management of dependency cannot scale.
Stef On May 16, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote: > Hi Stef, > > You obviously didn't read Andreas post. Please do it, it is really good > idea, which includes Metacello, it is simple and very similar to > Mariano's proposal. This means that a common solution for both Squeak > and Pharo is around a corner and that's what we all want! > > Best regards > Janko > > On 16. 05. 2010 18:26, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>> >>> I think Andreas' recent post to squeak-dev is most cogent o this topic: >> >> Eliot believe me we talk a lot of metacello since at least ESUG last year :) >> We support and appreciate dale's effort (even when people bashed metacello a >> while ago). >> So I think that we have a solution that looks ok for us. >> We started to see how we can manage pharoCore to produce pharoMini using >> metacello >> and what hamper us to remove more aggressively package is the speed of load >> monticello packages. >> >> Stef > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > AIDA/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
