Interesting question. Is the presumption that everyone reading the 
Squeak list also reads the Pharo list? I, for one, do not.

Cheers,
Bob

On 8/7/13 11:36 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> Everyone here is aware of the enormous amount of traffic on the Pharo
> list about getting these kinds of Delay problems sorted out, right?
>
> frank
>
> On 7 August 2013 16:14, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> Yes, making Delays work accurately wrt wall-clock time would be more work
>> now that I think about it. This seems to be better handled in a higher-level
>> object.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>> On 2013-08-07, at 16:16, Bob Arning <arning315 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking about that, but I suspect there are use cases for both image
>> time and real-world time. Maybe something like
>>
>> (Delay until: someRealTime) wait
>>
>> would meet the need the current Delay does not.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bob
>>
>> On 8/7/13 9:54 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> That has to be one of the oldest bugs! It's been there forever. I just
>> committed that to trunk.
>>
>> There is still a problem though. Squeak's delays (with Bob's fix) are based
>> on image "running time". That is, if I have a 1 hour delay and snapshot the
>> image after 45 minutes, on the next day it will expire 15 minutes after
>> starting the image.
>>
>> But arguably a delay should really expire by the same wall-clock time as
>> when it was scheduled, even across snapshots. This is how it was handled in
>> Smalltalk-80. Here's the ST80 code:
>>
>> Delay>>preSnapshot
>> "convert from local millisecond clock to milliseconds since Jan. 1 1901"
>> pendingDelay _ resumptionTime - Time millisecondClockValue.
>> resumptionTime _ Time totalSeconds * 1000 + pendingDelay
>>
>> Delay>>postSnapshot
>> "convert from milliseconds since Jan. 1 1901 to local millisecond clock"
>> pendingDelay _ resumptionTime - (Time totalSeconds * 1000).
>> pendingDelay _ pendingDelay max: 0.
>> resumptionTime _ Time millisecondClockValue + pendingDelay
>>
>> Of course, we would have to use UTC nowadays but I still think
>> re-implementing this would be a good idea.
>>
>> In any case, the fix makes the Delay snapshotting behavior at least
>> predictable :)
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>> On 2013-08-06, at 21:57, Bob Arning <arning315 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, this seems to fix it:
>>
>> 'From Squeak4.4 of 1 March 2013 [latest update: #12489] on 6 August 2013 at
>> 3:39:29 pm'!
>>
>> !Delay class methodsFor: 'snapshotting' stamp: 'raa 8/6/2013 15:22'!
>> restoreResumptionTimes
>>      "Private!! Restore the resumption times of all scheduled Delays after a
>> snapshot or clock roll-over. This method should be called only while the
>> AccessProtect semaphore is held."
>>
>>      | newBaseTime |
>>      newBaseTime := Time millisecondClockValue.
>>      SuspendedDelays do: [:d | d adjustResumptionTimeOldBase: 0 newBase:
>> newBaseTime].
>>      ActiveDelay == nil ifFalse: [
>>          ActiveDelay adjustResumptionTimeOldBase: 0 newBase: newBaseTime.
>>      ].
>>      ActiveDelayStartTime _ newBaseTime "<-----this"! !
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bob
>>
>> On 8/6/13 3:27 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
>>
>> Well the timer stuff has certainly been messed about with a lot since I last
>> had to dig into it, but it looks like it *ought* to work ok.
>>
>> The only likely culprit I can spot is some issue with adjusting the
>> resumption times after the restart, but that would require some problem with
>> the millisecond time prim.
>>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>> Strange OpCodes: YVR: Branch to Vancouver
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130807/6512d5bf/attachment.htm