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

[Igor Stasenko]

On 15 June 2012 10:48, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> Remember, what i have been told when i implemented a language-side
> scheduling, removing the
> need of VM to even know that is Semaphore?
> I been told *it is slow*. And this was the *only* argument against it,
> why it is found unacceptable.
>
>
> I think you might be misremembering. IIRC, the real argument was the risk (albeit expressed as performance concerns) of replacing VM-level scheduling by image-level scheduling without further ado. I don't recall that anyone had an objection to image-level scheduling as an option in addition to VM-level scheduling. In which case one can experiment with the implications and learn from the change in the environment without necessarily committing the production systems to an unproven feature.
>

But that's what i did, i made VM which remain compatible to existing
scheduling policy,
but adds a way to have a language-side scheduling, you simply
switching the scheduler object,
and voila, you got an image-side scheduling.
So, if you not sure about unproven part, you can keep running using a
"proven" one..

I am sure you know, that you cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg.
Needless to say, (and i'm not gonna to repeat it here), what benefits
providing a language-side scheduling
comparing to hardcoded semantics which you are forced to rely on.


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.