Thanks Bob, that is pretty much what I was guessing as well.

Dave


On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:24:28PM -0500, Bob Arning wrote:
> I honestly don't know what it was intended for -- I never used it and 
> can't see where anyone else did. If I were to hazard a guess, one might 
> connect some remote users to a project and switch locally to another 
> project and then call this method to allow the remote users to continue 
> to interact with the project they started with and which you, locally, 
> are not currently connected to. Just a guess, however.
> 
> 
> On 11/11/17 10:04 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
> >Thanks Bob,
> >
> >I am curious about the original motivation. If I look at how Project
> >works now, and how I expect that they may have originally been intended
> >to work, it makes perfect sense that more than one Project might be
> >"running" concurrently, even if nobody has actually done anything with
> >that idea for that last 15+ years. Was that part of the idea behind
> >#doOneCycleInBackground?
> >
> >Or am I reading too much into it?
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 07:08:13PM -0500, Bob Arning wrote:
> >>I doubt anyone was working on it in 2001 -- Andreas was probably just
> >>updating how [A|a]ctiveHand was used. I put the halt in
> >>#doOneCycleInBackground while getting multiple projects running
> >>currently. Since nobody has complained about the halt and I don't see
> >>any evidence it was used in earlier times, I'd not worry about it.
> >>
> >>
> >>On 11/11/17 4:53 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
> >>>This looks like something that Andreas may have been working on circa
> >>>2001, and I
> >>>see Dan Ingalls initial stamps from 1999.
> >>>
> >>>It looks to me like a mechanism for allowing a project other than the
> >>>current project
> >>>to be running a UI process associated with a RemoteHandMorph, so I am
> >>>envisioning
> >>>a Squeak image in which I am interacting with the current Project, while
> >>>someone
> >>>elsewhere on the network might be remotely interacting with another
> >>>project in
> >>>this same image.
> >>>
> >>>Am I guessing right?
> >>>
> >>>I stumbled across this while trying to tidy up unnecessary references to
> >>>the
> >>>global World variable. Certainly if one wanted to have two projects 
> >>>active
> >>>at
> >>>the same time (e.g. Project current and some other remotely controlled
> >>>Project),
> >>>it would be good to avoid refrerences to a global World, hence my
> >>>curiosity here.
> >>>
> >>>It does appear to be an unfinished experiment, given the self halt that
> >>>appears
> >>>in WorldState>>doOneCycleInBackground.
> >>>
> >>>Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> 

>