Squeakfoundation May 2003

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

18 participants
26 discussions

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Network stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 07 May '03

07 May '03

If nobody has particular objections, I propose we do that next step after merging KCP, which should be after the removals. Michael, if you can announce the update on squeak-dev, and also get a few people that have an interest to test it before we get to that point and report, that would be cool. Daniel Michael Rueger <m.rueger(a)acm.org> wrote: > Daniel Vainsencher wrote: > > > > Mike, your current stance on this would be useful... > > Trying to keep up ;-) > > IMHO the network rewrite should go into the update stream soon (meaning: > now ;-) ). > As Craig wrote in another mail it basically replaces the upper layers of > the network code and decouples it from the raw network access by always > going through SocketStream. This should make it easier to replace the > lower levels by e.g. Flow without breaking applications using the > protocol clients. > > I just uploaded the latest version for 3.5 (should work in 3.6 too), > please check if I broke anything (new). > > > > 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. > > I agree with the above :-) > > Regarding http: > I started the rewrite, then realized that I should merge it with > Comanche. Then seaside and later Comanche NG came up and I decided to > wait a little to see which architecture would emerge in that context. > Now might be a good time to take a look again. > > Cheers > > Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Network stuff
by Andreas Raab 07 May '03

07 May '03

Hi Guys, It just so happens that I got (once more) bitten by some of the more ugly parts of the current networking code and it just so happens that (once more) Mike's Network rewrite (http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/030feb79-34a9-4822-9a6f-d7d2e83 a0cef) fixes exactly the issues I was struggling with. I don't know if that's up on anyone's sleeve but I would really like to see this stuff getting into Squeak, mostly because it means that for the stuff I'm doing I know I can rely on proper network behavior without changing its fundamental semantics. What are your current thoughts on this issue? The network rewrite has been around for a while now and leaving it at SqueakMap probably means it'll rot and die there with anyone having similar problems at hand reinventing the solutions he's already bundled up. Cheers, - Andreas

3 4

Convincing a harvester
by Andreas Raab 07 May '03

07 May '03

[repost with different subject - hit the send button too fast] Daniel, > convince a Harvester it should be an ENHancement, not a SM entry. Funny you should mention this (see my post at SqF list) as I was just wondering how exactly one does this. There are a number of things where I think they should absolutely be put into kernel Squeak. Here are a few: * Network rewrite http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/030feb79-34a9-4822-9a6f-d7d2e83a 0cef Why: No changes to fundamental network semantics but an awful lot of fixes in a variety of areas. The last five times I got bitten by network code in Squeak I asked Mike and each time he told me "oh, I got this fixed long ago - just get the network rewrite". * TrueType text style http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/ab8088ce-4b01-4a15-bbff-82241d16 205e Why: If you have to ask this question you are not using Squeak for any media activity. If you do, then you don't have to ask. This is not a package - it's a basic requirement for anyone who does media stuff. * Multilingualization http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/8b53bfb4-481c-4d3c-bf31-1b1018fc 3d33 Why: Even if Yoshiki claims that it is still in flux my gut feeling is that this absolutely needs users! I bet that we have couple of people on this list who would want to use it (even if only for localizing eToys) and the limited context in which to use it here would be quite beneficial for further developments. I think we should have Yoshiki set up the "absolute minimal version" that he thinks is reliable enough to be put into the hands of real users and then give it a go. There are a couple of other packages where I think it would be really good if they were part of the kernel image but these three I feel mostly strongly about. Cheers, - Andreas

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Network stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 06 May '03

06 May '03

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(a)sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote: > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv(a)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(a)sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim > Useful random insult:- Subtle as a well-thrown brick. > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Network stuff
by Daniel Vainsencher 06 May '03

06 May '03

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? Daniel Andreas Raab <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > It just so happens that I got (once more) bitten by some of the more ugly > parts of the current networking code and it just so happens that (once more) > Mike's Network rewrite > (http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/030feb79-34a9-4822-9a6f-d7d2e83 > a0cef) fixes exactly the issues I was struggling with. I don't know if > that's up on anyone's sleeve but I would really like to see this stuff > getting into Squeak, mostly because it means that for the stuff I'm doing I > know I can rely on proper network behavior without changing its fundamental > semantics. > > What are your current thoughts on this issue? The network rewrite has been > around for a while now and leaving it at SqueakMap probably means it'll rot > and die there with anyone having similar problems at hand reinventing the > solutions he's already bundled up. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

7 7

Harvesting
by Daniel Vainsencher 06 May '03

06 May '03

I wrote a couple of days ago that I don't think we should have more harvesters right now. Maybe that's wrong? How about the following announcement: "In order to get the harvesting process more lively, we'd like to have about 5 more harvesters. Responders should be quite experienced with Squeak, should be familiar with and willing to apply the rules as published on the Swiki, and have an intention to harvest 5 change sets a month (no sworn oaths needed - but we are trying to make it lively...). Candidates should reply with evaluations of their first 5 intended changesets, just to get started, and to make sure we're in sync, since some aspects of the process are new." Daniel

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation May 2003