On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>> That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work together in the
>> same image
>> without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of classes
>> in the image
>> quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I strongly suggest
>> to either use
>> OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a reason why
>> people want to
>> switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
>>
>>
>
> We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones are
> installed. Both ? only one ? �The solution I like most, is in these options:
>
> 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
>
> 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can install
> O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
>
> 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in
> ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those people who
> want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image and wala!
>
> With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With 2) and
> 3) �you will have also O2 but bigger image.
>
> I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly in a
> dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create a dev
> image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new group I can
> create.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Mariano