On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/9/21 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
> > 2010/9/21 Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>:
> >> Currently we have three more errors than we had in the last build that I
> >> rolled. I'm looking at a run on #10532.
> >>
> >> In general I'd recon it's an improvement, except for the errors (I don't
> >> mind new failures as long as the total number of tests has gone up by an
> >> equal or greater amount, but errors just give me the willies.) Also, the
> >> errors are to do with some stuff that looks like it could be hairy.
> Blocks
> >> and finalization. If these can be blessed by more experienced folks than
> me
> >> as "not that big a deal" then I would be quite happy to roll a build
> >> tomorrow night.
> >> Here's the numbers:
> >>
> >> 2803 run, 2762 passes, 9 expected failures, 28 failures, 4 errors, 0
> >> unexpected passes
> >>
> >> 25 new tests
> >>
> >> 9 expected failures (no change)
> >>
> >> 28 failures (2 more than the previous image)
> >>
> >> 4 errors (3 more than the previous image)
> >>
> >> Errors:
> >>
> >> EventManagerTest>>
> >>
> >> #testBlockReceiverNoArgs
> >>
> >> #testBlockReceiverOneArg
> >>
> >> #testBlockReceiverTwoArgs
> >>
> >
> > Oh, I see, it was me introducing clean-up from Juan for
> > http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7352 in
> > http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Kernel-nice.482.mcz
> >
> > Obviously, WeakActionSequence now restricts element class to
> > MessageSend and WeakMessageSend...
> > I see three solutions:
> >
> > 1) implement the 3 compatibility messages into classes of "valuable"
> > objects (like BlockClosure)
> > 2) wrap those valuable object into a (MessageSend receiver:
> > valuableObject selector: #value) at creation time
> > 3) revert the changes... and reintroduce the bug :(
> >
> > I don't like 1 because it's spreading very specific messages in the
> system.
> > I don't like 3 because there's enough bugs in the image.
> > I much prefer 2)
> >
> > Any other idea?
> >
>
> On the other hand there is already a protocol 'events-support' in
> BlockClosure with two messages #asMinimalRepresentation #isValid, so
> 1) was the previous option adopted in Squeak.
>

+1.  But is 'events-support' correct or is 'finalization support' better?


> Note that the second message #isValid is not used anymore after Juan's
> clean-up and could be removed.
>
> Nicolas
>
> > Nicolas
> >
> >> WeakFinalizersTest>>#testNewFinalizationSupported
> >>
> >> --
> >> Casey Ransberger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100921/b014eeb7/attachment.htm