I've decided to change the way I deliver BottomFeeder. Up to this point, I've been delivering monolithic builds with the application and the runtime packaged together. What I've been working on today (in between snow clearing) has been a new packaging scheme. When the 2.8 release comes out, you'll see this:
- Tar gzip file for each platform. These will contain the directory structure, the base Smalltalk runtime, and the VM, along with the application. The application will be shipped as a parcel which loads at startup.
- Updgrading to a DEV build or a new version will be as simple as downloading the parcel - the only time I expect to be shipping a new runtime and VM is on new releases of the base VisualWorks product
It turns out that the base BottomFeeder parcel is a little over 400k - and just over 100k compressed. Once I transition to this form of deployment, it should be a whole lot easier and faster to upgrade.
I was motivated to do this by
reading this critique of BottomFeeder, by the author of the
Syndirella aggregator. Some of the criticisms are valid; I've eliminated most of the confusing save/restore options, and moving to the loadable application deployment is another good step. Some of his points are just odd though - he makes a statement that we use screen turf badly. Now mind you, I'm not going to claim to be a GUI layout whiz (That would be
Vassili Bykov). However, the screen shots for
Syndirella show a virtually identical layout. As to support for Cyrillic - yeah, we don't provide that. If someone provides me with a Russian Locale, I could look into it though.
Anyway, I think I've improved the app based on some of those critiques. As soon as I can get the Runtime Packager stability in 7.1 that I had in 7, I'll release 2.8
Comments
Untitled
[yole] February 17, 2003 5:23:08.512
It's not only the layout that matters; it's how the layout is implemented. Yes, Syndirella uses the same three panes as BottomFeeder. But Syndirella displays, say, 20 post titles in the same space in which BottomFeeder (with the default table layout) displays 10. I didn't make exact measurements, but the ratio should be about right. The difference is caused by Syndirella not wasting space on borders between items, and on displaying the latest update dates of the feed. Of course, calling the space "wasted" is subjective. But, personally, I prefer the more compact layout. What other my points did you find odd? I'd be happy to comment and explain them in more detail.