On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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). > This is exactly why having both browser is confusing a newcomer. If you cannot choose, you don't confuse :) > > 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: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique > Cobá Martinez > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: > question about O2 vs OB > > El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió: > > > > 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 > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
