Chris Muller-3 wrote
>>> Hmm... I would implement such an API rather via composition than
>>> inheritance. Such a task does not necessarily have to run in the same
>>> image
>>> but could also be accomplished on another machine. OSProcess has
>>> RemoteTask
>>> for this. Inheritance would make things complicated once one would
>>> decide to
>>> not carry out the computation as a Squeak process.
> 
> It is implemented via composition, not inheritance.
> 
> Maybe it is name, ClientProcess, that made you assume it is a subclass
> of Process..?  It is not.  :)
> 
>>> I do like Tony's idea of process groups. We could think this one step
>>> further an add multiple tags (symbols?) to processes to support
>>> fine-granular or cross-cutting classifications.
>> >Tools like the process
>>> browser could show these tags, group by them, etc. There could be tags
>>> to
>>> identify processes that would stop working once you close the Squeak
>>> image
>>> (e.g. "not resumable")... Hmmm... Application developers could use tags
>>> to
>>> provide hints for other developers and users.
> 
> Processes already have names, which could facilitate a hierarchical
> naming if someone wanted, and list filtering in the Process browser
> would make "grouping" or "finding" a Process pretty much free..
> 
> If all you want to do is tag and group processes, I would consider
> putting them into named groups/containers rather than add more
> process-level attributes..

Managing tags would be easier than managing groups. Tags are not so
restictive compared to groups. Tags are like groups but more flexible. Take
our message categories as an example. If those would be like tags, you
wouldn't have to descide for a dominant structure:

accessing - geometry - private
vs.
geometry - accessing - private
vs. 
private - geometry - accessing
vs.
...

See?

Best,
Marcel



--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Re-System-and-user-processe-tp4902160p4902392.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.