Hi, there.
What do you think about triggering code updates not directly but deferred via a project's deferred UI messages?
Here is a change set that does that: thin-update-process.cs http://forum.world.st/file/n4904046/thin-update-process.cs
Since we do not update the compiled methods in existing process call stacks, update code would be more robust if the respective call stack would be small. For example, this affects code that uses direct inst var accesses like HandMorph >> #handleEvent:.
Drawback: If you want to update the system programmatically such as in a deployment scenario, you would have to account for that. Fabio? :D
Best, Marcel
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Deferring-code-update-calls-tp4904046.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM, marcel.taeumel Marcel.Taeumel@hpi.de wrote:
Hi, there.
What do you think about triggering code updates not directly but deferred via a project's deferred UI messages?
Yes.
Drawback: If you want to update the system programmatically such as in a deployment scenario, you would have to account for that. Fabio? :D
No. Don't put it in the updater code, but into the menu item handler.
- Bert -
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org