[Seaside-dev] Re: partial continuation implementation

[Julian Fitzell]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Lukas Renggli <renggli at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't want a continuation framework. I want a continuation
> implementation
> > that isn't implemented only to work in the current implementation of
> Flow.
> > Particularly if Gemstone is doing VM modifications to make this work, it
> > would be nice to have an implementation done properly the first time so
> we
> > have some flexibility.
>
> Again, WAPartialContinuation is within a platform specific package.
> The only user is a platform specific method and a the platform
> specific tests. Gemstone, VASt, GST, Dolphin, ... will use their own
> implementation if they decide to support Seaside-Flow. Forcing more
> flexibility does not help other platforms, it will only make porting
> harder when we start to use this functionality.
>

It is probably a lot easier for Gemstone to allow their implementation to
support a different marker on evaluation if they implement it that way from
the start. I am simply raising the possibility that this flexibility is
desirable so they can evaluate how difficult it is to support. Otherwise,
they may simply have implemented something to the informal spec created by
the tests you wrote.

Julian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/attachments/20090204/10f8fd96/attachment.htm