PoolDictionary handling (was Re: [ANN] "Upgrade to 3.6 Full
Image" package on SqueakMap)
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat May 17 15:27:09 UTC 2003
> Perhaps it's worthwhile to make one thing really, really clear here:
> I'm not
> proposing to invent some radically new
I know. But you know I like that good ideas get throw so at any
occasion I restate them (declarative syntax, and others :))
> We're having a real problem with managing pools which has been
> outlined in
> Tim's message very clearly. I'm trying to give people options rather
> fixing them into one particular solution. The key to give people
> options is
> to make the protocol simple yet general enough in order to support
> That's what I did. Introduce a single protocol for resolving names and
> it consistently. You can still use dictionaries exactly the same way
> it used
> to be, but now you actually have alternatives.
> If we can *just* agree on that single protocol being used for resolving
> names then people can start inventing better more general, powerful,
> reflective mechanisms.
> Whatever. I don't care. Because if we can agree on a single protocol
> then at
> least I know how to solve the problem at hand - managing these freaking
> pools in *some* way.
Exact. So go for it send a changeset with your single protocol and the
fixes you did,
because I do not see the point that I bump in all the details you
and I will really look at it to understand and push it into the
I learned to hate pool in the past.
> - Andreas
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
>> Behalf Of Stephane Ducasse
>> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:39 PM
>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> Subject: Re: PoolDictionary handling (was Re: [ANN] "Upgrade
>> to 3.6 Full Image" package on SqueakMap)
>> Hi andreas and other interested Pool guys
>> I do not have enough distance with the problem to really have a clear
>> What I know is that I would like:
>> - you guys to discuss and that we find a solution ;)
>> You know cleaning
>> kernel is quite a big task, so we do not want to hold
>> anybody that has
>> a good idea
>> or experience to propose a ready to work solution.
>> - I think that having an explicit representation for
>> global, class,
>> and poolVariable
>> in the chunk format would be excellent. A real
>> declarative syntax.
>> PoolDefiner name: B3DConstants
>> B3DConstants class>>initialize
>> "Initialize the pool"
>> PoolVar1 := 123.
>> PoolVar2 := #mumble.
>> We could also see that in the change sorter and other
>> tool for example
>> (a bit like rosetta or Ginsu)
>> - Why don't you introduce a common superclass
>> PoolDefiner because I
>> have the impression
>> that you will need that to support all kind of stuff?
>> - Steven I'm like andreas. Puzzled ;) could you explain
>> us why value
>> is better.
>> I completely miss it. Anthony?
>> - There's still one problem by the way - making a
>> change to a pool
>>> needs a recompilation of all the classes importing this pool (e.g.,
>>> when you
>>> add/remove a class var or another pool). It might be worthwhile to
>>> make up a
>>> common superclass for these 'pools' which know how to handle this
>> - I always hated this static construct. Everything in
>> Smalltalk is
>> dynamic except
>> this point. I think that the solution should address
>> this point too.
>> Any idea beside not using them :)?
More information about the Squeak-dev