jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 04:39:00 UTC 2007
On 10/25/07, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
> No, you'd not have to deep copy every time you send the messages. You can
> send references and when accessing them in the remote image (or image B if
> you prefer) you can ask the local image (or image A if you prefer) to send
> the missing data.
Or I can just not do that, do the deep copy and not have the problems
mentioned in the rest of your mail. Again you are talking about
something that *I'm not* and then explaining why *your approach* is
hard to do.
> Now this assumes that the objects in image A didn't change
> in the meantime. Yikes. Problems are getting worse. You can't avoid them.
> There is no silver bullet with this attempt at simplifying concurrency. It's
> a harsh reality.
The insight that Bell labs had with Unix over the mainframe makers was
that *we don't need a silver bullet*. We need to get 90% and provide
some way that the small % of people that need more can use.
More information about the Squeak-dev