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 Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project