Udanax ? (was Persist or not persist : comment)

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel@lsi.usp.br
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:29:12 -0200

shapj@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 4. A design that really hadn't been thought out well with regard to common cases
> and/or simplification and/or I/O management.
> The Xanadudes were quite brilliant architects. Problem (4), however, is serious,
> and I think that any system built from either of the original Xanadu code bases
> will fail. I am hopeful that udanax will eventually succeed, but I don't think
> that they will do so from the current code base.

Thank you very much for sharing this insight, which I think is
particularly relevant to Tunes (and even more to my own project,
since I have worked on it for so many years without releasing
anything yet).

Some folks over at the Squeak camp are excited that the second
version was written in Smalltalk and are hoping to port it and
use it for source code management/versioning. I think the
architecture at least (if not the source code itself, which I
haven't looked at) might work very nicely for that.

I have tried to learn all I could about Xanadu since it was
described in Byte magazine some 11 years ago, but decided that
while it sounded exactly like what I needed, it would probably
not perform very well as a persistent object system (too many
links for too little content). But if at least some of the Xanadu
magic rubs off on the web, it will have benn worth it.

BTW, some pages hint that an idea called "Ent" is key to
understading the architecture of the second Xanadu version, but
I could not find anything at all about it online.

-- Jecel