I don't understand the problem.  Let us say we start from the
example in the method:

--------------------
'Now here''s some Real Progress'
	displayProgressAt: Sensor cursorPoint
	from: 0 to: 10
	during: [:bar |
	1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar value: x.
			(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]].
--------------------

and your "algorithm" here would be:

	1 to: 10 do: [:x | "do something here"
			(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

It is already reasonably decoupled to me, but I take that you want to
keep the "algorithm" really prestine and don't want to have "bar
value: x" call in there, and completely get rid of anything from "do
something here".  Is this the case?

  There still have to have some way to tell how much percent of work
done from the "algorithm" to the progress notification mechanism.  In
the possible meta approach (which would not be that hard at all), I'd
make an instance variable for the object that represents your
algorithm state, and the algorithm assigns a value to the instance
variable, and the progress bar displayer that is running in a separate
thread looks at the variable periodically and update the screen.

  However, in this senario, you would have to have an assignment to
that variable at "do something here":

-----------------
	1 to: 10 do: [:x | progress := x.
			(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].
-----------------

But is "progress := x" any better than "bar value: x"?

  Somebody suggested announcements.  So your algorithm would look like:

-----------------
	1 to: 10 do: [:x | self announce: (ProgressAnnouncement value: x).
			(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].
-----------------

And a stepping morph surely does not work.  If something was started
from a do-it in workspace, next time the morph gets #step message is
after the do-it is completed.

The "bar" block could be stored in an instance variable of the
algorithm object, and your algorithm may do:

-----------------
	1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar ifNotNil: [bar value: x].
			(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].
-----------------

This may be just as good as it gets without complicating anything
else.

  Note that your algorithm may not be a loop.  It is totally legitimate
to write:

algorithm
	self doA.
	bar value: 0.33.
	self doB.
	bar value: 0.66.
	self doC.

where doA, doB, doC are long running computation.  So, really generic
way to view the progress of something from outside without the
knowledge of where to look at and how to interpret these values are
not going to fly.

-- Yoshiki

At Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:10:58 -0300,
Martin Dias wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     Hello
>    
>     I have idea about "meta approach" for implementation of progress tracking of arbitrary method execution.
>    
>     Progress tracking (progress bar stuff) is really ortogonal functionallity for method execution. And it would be cool
>     if we have framework for describing tracking of method execution stuff (like it progress).
>     This framework should run block of code in background and periodically analize state of this background process
>     stack. And show this state for user. And so this framework allow track execution of arbitrary code.
>     Analizing state can search running loops in stack for example and show user status of loop counters.
>    
>     I think it is not very hard to implement. But maybe this approach can't be implemented when code jitted
> 
> I like the "meta approach"... but it doesn't look easy to implement for me!
> Have you seen something like that implemented? or some paper written?
>  
> 
>     2011/3/30 Martin Dias <tinchodias at gmail.com>
>    
>         Hello
>        
>         I have a couple of algorithms and I want to show the progress while they run. I played with the progress bar and
>         it's okay for my needs.
>        
>         The progress bar should be pluggable and decoupled of the algorithms.
>        
>         I am writing to you to ask about good designs for my problem. I hope I haven't expressed the problem in a too
>         abstract way.
>        
>         The design I have in mind is a kind of observer pattern: the serialization algorithm publishes information about
>         the run; a specific listener implements the progress bar for that serialization algorithm, interpreting the
>         information published.
>        
>         Thanks,
>         Martin
> 
> 
> [2  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
>