On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I see it, you use the two in distinct cases:
> - save alone is exclusively used for copying an image. There is no point in
> no quitting in this case.
that’s okay
> - execution+save is used either to start a server process (hence noquit is
> desired), or to setup an image (hence, quit is desired). I think favoring the
> server process is possibly the more common case. On the other hand, you are
> right in that it is not uniform with respect to the first case, but I think
> it is not unreasonable.
>
ok, here is why this smells like a Smalltalk Gremlin to me:
1. It’s worth mention that for starting a server image you can also
install/hook to the #startUp: message in the right class with the benefit of
not relying in an external script that might generate a problem not tested by
the image builder or CI environment (which is what I’m doing BTW)
2. it currently doesn’t work. You can send an .st script alright and the save
will be ignored (so you have to do that in two commands not one)
3. You don’t have a server if you don’t have its image prepared first. So, to
be “reasonable" you have to (a) break the flow of the experience and (b) break
the consistency with the default script behaviour. Both at the same time. If
you want to decree that the current behaviour is reasonable you have to do
both: disregard the flow of the experience and the consistency of the pharo
script-ish default behaviour. But that only after you fix the bug
so…
sebastian
o/
