In fact the Seaside 3 Configuration was one of the first things I tested :-) Unfortunatelly I was not successful however it looked promissing,
-- Pavel On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > So....soon we will be able to prepare a Seaside 30 Pharo Kernel image? > :):):):):):) > > Since we have Monticello.... great!! > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> a good new, Gofer works fine for me :-) >> ...and test results for kernel, network, Monticello and Gofer are quite >> good. >> >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I uploaded a new version of PharoKernel. It has several new properties: >> >> - better scripts processing >> >> - separate dictionaries for images, scripts, reports and downloaded >> >> packages >> >> - It is able to load Network, Monticello and Gopher (image included), >> >> however it needs some next fixes to work properly >> >> - ImageMap and ImageGraph included in the archive >> >> >> >> >> >> https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27699/PharoKernel-1.2-12217.zip >> >> >> >> The most important thing that should be done in Pharo is to split >> >> Tests package to be able to load Monticello tests separately. >> > >> > Yes >> > and that they follow the pattern >> > >> >> If Monticello and Gofer will work well then it should be quite simple >> >> to prepare PharoCore Configuration to load the rest of PharoCore. >> > >> > Yes this is the vision but now our problem is to port our integration >> > process to it. >> > We will certainly changes it anyway because it slows us down (does not >> > scale) but it requires to have a good alternative. >> >> Well, Configurations were always suspicious to me - they do not even >> share a common superclass :-) >> >> -- Pavel >> >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > >
