At any rate my point is that Delays across image saves have caused
Pharo people a reasonable amount of pain. If someone experiences pain,
it can be worthwhile learning from the lessons of others.

That is all.

frank

On 7 August 2013 17:13, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> ... which is not what Igor was proposing there, and I agree with Eliot's objection to simply firing all delays at image startup time.
>
> Switching to wall-clock for all delays would have pretty much the same effect, since the typical time between image snapshot and startup is larger than the typical delay time.
>
> Delays being ultimately low-level objects I don't think wall-clock makes sense for them. You would need a calendar object for that, IMHO.
>
> - Bert -
>
> On 2013-08-07, at 17:52, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's at least partially here:
>> http://forum.world.st/A-matter-with-Delays-td4671239.html People there
>> seem to be proposing what's in this thread: sometimes what you mean is
>> "15 minutes from now, wall clock time, do this", and other times you
>> want "15 minutes from now, 'logical time', do this". "Logical time"
>> means image running time.
>>
>> Personally, I'm in the wall-clock-is-all-there-is camp, for what it's worth.
>>
>> frank
>>
>> On 7 August 2013 16:40, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>> Err, no? I don't have time to follow all mailing lists, rather relying on kind people forwarding relevant discussions here :)
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>> On 2013-08-07, at 17:36, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>