It is done like that. There's a setting (open setting browser, small harbour group) to tell which VM to start for SmallHarbour itself and which VM to run hosted image. Default is to use the same VM, but for public server we want to run another one.
Laurent. On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Torsten Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >What we are currently doing: > >- integrate some vm patches (thanks Mariano :) from netstyle / seaside > >hosting which limit file system / socket access > > Yes seasidehosting.st is running a modified VM to provide > a more sandbox like environment. > > But one problem of port limitation is that it is not possible to > send mails from the seasidehosting app (for instance for a registration > step). That's OK since the hosting is free and it could be abused > to send spam - but if you want to form a new Smalltalk based business > and create a seaside app using SmallHarbour this may be something you > will not miss in your shiny new online application. > > Maybe there could be two versions of SmallHarbour - an edition > with limited rights for all and one with more rights for people/developers > the community knows longer and trusts. > Developers have to "earn" the second status (by providing extensions, > code fixes,...) - this would also help moving Pharo/Seaside forward. > > It may also help to distinguish between "I just played with this stuff" > (like most inactive accounts on seasidehosting prove) and real active > users who may provide the next success story. > > Bye > T. > > > -- > Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir > belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de > >
