On 27 January 2014 13:25, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 27.01.2014, at 14:17, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27 January 2014 11:27, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27.01.2014, at 12:06, Stephan Eggermont <stephan at stack.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Each of my own application instances has its own SharedObjects
>>>>> container.  It's just a simple wrapper of some IdentityDictionary's,
>>>>> one for Dates, one for literals (incl. Strings).  This way, each
>>>>> object belongs in its own persistent domain, and remaining a String to
>>>>> avoid being forced to be shared across persistent domains.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should not let any one app bloat the SymbolTable (which can slow
>>>>> down the system for ALL apps) merely for this purpose.  If we want to
>>>>> address this data redundancy, we should do so explicitly in the app
>>>>> (MC).  This is a recurring issue we should address it with a reusable
>>>>> first-class SharedObjectsContainer (or something else acceptable).
>>>>
>>>> Ha, that’s the kind of comments I was hoping for. Thanks Tobias for
>>>> pushing this. An application specific value object cache makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> May we schedule this for 4.6?
>>
>> Sounds like a good idea. Would you mind updating
>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6192 accordingly?
>
> Can I?

I'm confused: are you asking for permission? ("yes, of course, since
you're a member of the Squeak community, and the 4.6 list of requests
is for everyone") Or are you asking for the ability? (Because you
don't know the password.)

frank

> Best
>         -Tobias
>
>
>
>