danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Jun 11 21:46:49 UTC 2003
If you're overwriting the update, then you might as well put the code in
Socket class>>initialize, instead of a do it, so that
unloading/reloading it will do the right thing.
Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
> >Secondly, it seems that the Network rewrite updates lack some initialization
> >code. Socket>>deadServer responds with nil which makes it impossible to load
> >further updates without manually resetting the dead server, e.g.,
> > Socket deadServer: ''
> >does the trick. I think some additional update just containing the above
> >should solve that problem for anyone who updates through the entire sequence
> >but people having stopped after the network rewrite will have the do the
> >above manually.
> I just tried adding a new update 5260 on the internal (testing) stream,
> and that doesn't work because the dead server stops any updates after
> 5259 from being loaded, even if they are done in sequence.
> So, it looks like I'll need to just overwrite update 5259 so that it
> also includes the " Socket deadServer: '' " reset in its postscript.
> Overwriting updates has been done on rare occasions in the past, I
> believe. :-) Either way, people who have already updated and saved a
> 5259 image will need to execute the do-it themselves.
> (Speaking of not being out of the woods yet, the update broadcasting
> mechanism seems to be broken now too. I ftp-ed these updates directly
> to the server to test them. I'll have to look at this problem tonight...)
> - Doug Way
More information about the Squeak-dev