Light-weight monitor implementation?
Ron at USMedRec.com
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.
From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 gmx.de> 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
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