[Vm-dev] [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format

[Igor Stasenko]

if you remember i said before, that i don't like immutability enforced
through VM contract.

imagine two frameworks, using immutability flag for their own
purposes, and contending for ownership
of same object(s)..

IMO, there are other , better, solutions to that but i'm not going to
go in details...


On 11 June 2012 18:05, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-06-11, at 1:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> Because look, lazy become, immutability - those two addressing many
> problems related to OODB implementation
> (i barely see other use cases, where immutability would be as useful
> as in cases of OODB)..
> so for me it is logical to have this last step: by adding arbitrary
> properties, OODB now can store the ID there.
>
>
> Well, it goes a little further than that. I think immutability is generally useful for any system that persists objects outside the image. OODBs are one example, but the same applies for ORM, LOOM-style virtual memory, or even syncing of state across the network. I've even wished for immutability when working on web applications. It's a join point for any aspects related to state.
>
> Arbitrary properties are actually used quite a bit already, they just don't have VM support. Morphic and Tweak use them extensively, as does the dependency system. I suspect we'd find that a lot of hacks and kludges could be subsumed by VM-supported arbitrary properties. (e.g., ephemerons).
>
> So yeah, +1 to arbitrary properties.
>
> Colin
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.