Light-weight monitor implementation?

Ron Teitelbaum Ron at
Thu Nov 3 14:11:38 UTC 2005


I agree with your approach of a simpler superclass leaving the heavyweight
as a sub.  It would be useful for people to understand the class.  Maybe you
could consider leaving the class name the same and adding a new refactored
superclass?  That way if there are people that have used the class they do
not have to change their code.  


-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-bounces at
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at] On Behalf Of Cees De
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 2:58 AM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: Light-weight monitor implementation?

On 11/3/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at> wrote:
> What do other people think? Is there any reason for Monitor being such a
> heavy-weight object by default? Is it necessary that a monitor support
> all of the extra functionality besides the basic "allow a process to
> enter it multiple times"?
I guess - just guess - that this class landed in the image from some
other project.

I've yet to encounter a user of Monitor in the image, and I am all for
clean, minimal implementations in the base code (if I want bloat, I
can always play with VisualAge Smalltalk), so I throw in my vote pro a

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list