[squeak-dev] Does Monticello try to install shared pools before methods using them?

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Mon Dec 8 22:58:24 UTC 2014

Hi All, Hi Bert,

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure the responsibility falls to the loader.  I'm not too
> familiar with it but if I wanted to be I would probably start tracing
> from McVersionLoader.

+1.  Craig, I thought that Monticello had been modified to load additions
first, then changes, then removals.  But when I read the code I can't see
this sorting in trunk.  Bert, what's your recollection?  And if you agree
that Monticello does this, where's the code?  I see that MCPatch>>applyTo:
doesn't do anything special and when it appears to collect its definitions
in MCPatch>>initializeWithBase:target: there is no sorting going on.  What
am I missing?

> Do your pool references end up being valid?  That is the most
> important but I agree it would be an annoyance to see those messages
> in the Transcript.

Hi Craig,

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi--
> >
> >      I'm attempting to create a Monticello package which provides a
> > shared pool (as a subclass of SharedPool) and methods which use its
> > variables. On installation, does Monticello try to ensure that a pool is
> > installed before methods which use it? When I install the package in a
> > fresh system, I get messages on the Transcript complaining that shared
> > variables are undefined.

As I said above I thought Monticello implemented that sensible load order
of add, change, remove, in which case poll definitions should be included
in additions, and before any methods.  But I can't see where in current
trunk this is happening.  AFAIC, not loading in this order is a bug.  We
need as predictable aand useful a general load order as possible, and it
should be straight-forward to arrange that pools are added early.

> >      Is there some way one fiddles with the writing process, or with the
> > package after it is written, to avoid ordering problems?
> >
> >
> >      thanks!
> >
> > -C
> >
> > --
> > Craig Latta
> > netjam.org
> > +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
> > + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
> >
> >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20141208/dd8b066a/attachment.htm

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list