Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplextra!hplb!gw
From: gw@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Gunther Walther)
Subject: On Envy archive (was: Smalltalks need less intrusive breakpoint mechanism)
Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
Message-ID: <D4nKAB.7Ms@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:42:11 GMT
References: <MACRSHAP.95Feb16110652@labs-n.bbn.com> <3i1gle$ckf@isnews.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <macrshap-1702950936340001@ipa.bbn.com> <3i7p21$7e6@news0.cybernetics.net> <D4Eyxx.7q7@hplb.hpl.hp.com> <3ig6mj$qkj@brtph500.bnr.ca>
Nntp-Posting-Host: gwalther.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0.7]
Lines: 38


Scott VandeLinde (insrsv01@nt.com) wrote:

: However, this also brings up another 
: question.  Why is there no area in the Smalltalk archives for 
: Envyized code?  After I find something that looks interesting, I 
: first have to verify that it even works under Envy, and then package 
: it properly. I am sure that this process is repeated by lots of 
: people.  If anyone knows of the proper place to put Envy stuff, 
: I would be happy to upload this package.


Scott raised an interesting issue. Do we need an archive
for envyzied code? It is very likely, that a lot of effort
is duplicated to get applications to run under Envy.
I can see three different approaches to the problem:

a) create an archive for Envy ported code. This leads to
   the duplication of source code and might cause other
   problems.

b) submit Envy ported code and store it in the same place as
   the original code. This would require the Envy ported code
   to run equally well under plain VW. As the Envy version
   might lag in time when a new release comes out, the old
   Envy version and the new non-envy version might have
   to be stored concurrently (assuming that the development
   was done without Envy). So this would boil down to a),
   except that the intention would be to keep just one version
   of the code.

c) wait until PP and OTI have ironed out the differences.
   Whether this is possible, or even whether they are working
   on it, I don't know...

Any comments on this?

gunther
