I am very much in favor or providing ready choice in the browsers and tools. �It would also help to have the browswers somehow brand themselves. �Conversation here centers on things like O2 vs. OB, but there are at least two O2 browswers (package and system).

I am probably most concerned about keeping the standard tool set which does away with the new inspector and might have other favorable side effects.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cob� Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB

El mi�, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribi�:
>
> � � � � 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.

I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other.

Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image.

my 2 cents



>
> What do you think ?
>
> Mariano
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

--
Miguel Cob�
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx


_______________________________________________
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