On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:12:55 +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Igor Stasenko wrote:
...
>> Yes, as Klaus noticed, there of course the difference between code
>> which runned and code which potentially can be run, if you provide
>> different input to it.
>> But this, i think, up to ones who using this, not me :)
>
> True. I just happen to think that the mechanism is fundamentally flawed  
> and cannot possibly work the way in which people naively think it ought  
> to work. And by now we do have quite some experience in building actual  
> production systems that use such mechanisms and that's exactly where my  
> opposition comes from. Note that it's always easy to come up with  
> trivial little examples where things will work all right. It's even  
> possible to come up with situations where it works "most" of the time  
> (Morphic projects are one such example). But *all* the time? No way  
> unless you're doing it the hard way because it is the only case in which  
> you can assert the properties that you need.
>
>> Oh, and maybe then, if you strongly opposing this to be as part of VM,
>> then what about doing this at language side? What if let users develop
>> own ways how to create custom object memory, and make this as simple
>> as:
>>  array := MyStripper scanMemoryForUsefulObjects.
>> HydraVM spawnInterpreterWithMemory: array.
>>  .. so this will require a single change in HydraVM, just a simple  
>> primitive :)
>
> We have this already. It's called an image segment.

And there is Ian's RemoteFrameBuffer,

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-January/112860.html

a natural way for commanding one .image from the other (don't forget  
setting the display depth on both sides, then it works, here with  
Croquet.exe and a MinimalMorphic.image controlled from Squeak.exe with a  
3.9 final .image :)

And thanks to Norbert for his 3.9 RemoteFrameBuffer .cs !

Cant't wait for the fixed #saveAsHeadlessImage: to work ;-)

/Klaus

> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>