[Squeakfoundation]Network stuff

[Daniel Vainsencher]

These are a few things I seem to recall that motivate my position to
include the network rewrite in 3.6:
- One of the two authors mentioned that Flow/NR are more or less
disjoint.
- NR creates SMTP/POP clients using the new Socket class. These I tested
for all my mail for a few months, and I got to be very happy with them.
- NR itself replaces UI warnings with exceptions. While this immidiately
breaks many applications, we can have a temporary defaultAction to avoid
this effect in 3.6a, giving people time to adjust/find bugs in the core
Socket, if there is any. Then we can use 3.7 to break the interface (by
removing the default actions) and let people adjust the applications.
- These are the changes that are important for applications. Cleanup of
the streams/sockets/external handles are important, but maybe to less
people. While I'd like to get those handled, whether by Flow or
otherwise, I don't see a reason to wait.

Mike, your current stance on this would be useful...

Daniel

Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> 
> > Darn, I intended to answer this topic on this thread, but already wrote
> > it in the other. In short, I'm for it.
> > 
> > Anyone objects?
> I'm in favour of anything that cleans up the ugliness around filenames,
> sockets, streams etc. Now, my understanding is that Flow does a great
> deal around this region so perhaps that should be the answer. However,
> I also believe (maybe incorrectly) that Flow requires some thread
> capability in order to function propelry. Since I can't support threads
> on RISC OS and I don't think one can guarantee thread support on
> embedded OSs, perhaps I need to stand up for a fallback capability?
> 
> Assuming for the moment that Flow is not the best answer for
> the immediate future, then these fixups for the older stuff from Mike
> are probably a Good Thing. However, reading the comments I get a bit
> nervous when I see 'bleeding edge', 'first part of' etc. If Mike is not
> claiming that it is ready, perhaps we shouldn't leap too quickly.
> 
> I'd really like to see a good answer on all this. Changes to file
> handling and sockety stuff are probably some of the most entangled code
> around because so many methods make use of them. And _so_ many make poor
> use of them....
> 
> 
> tim
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Useful random insult:- Subtle as a well-thrown brick.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation