Spoon progress 27 July 2006: shared variables (including
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Fri Jul 28 09:08:17 UTC 2006
I like this kind of email. I like to check whether what I know is
> Shared variables in Smalltalk are stored as associations; the key
> is a
> shared variable name, and the value is an object associated with that
> name. When the compiler compiles source for a method that refers to a
> shared variable's name, it attempts to find an appropriate
> shared-variable association for that name. It stores that
> association in
> the "literal frame" of the resulting compiled method (currently, a
> of the method's bytes after the header and before the instructions).
Is my hypothesis really true?
"is the binding (and not the class) stored because that way a class
can be recompiled/changed
and the new object representing the class can be changed without
having to go over all the
method literal frames?"
A positive answer to my question implies that the Smalltalk bindings
are shared between
the literal frames else we would have to change them or change the
value (the class too).
> There are instructions for pushing the value of a particular
> shared-variable association from a method's literal frame onto the
> (or "temporary frame") of a context running that method (see
> Interpreter>>pushLiteralVariableBytecode, the implementation of
> interpreter operations 16r40 to 16r5F).
> I propose to make the compiler use the classes' notion of names
> directly, so that there is only one naming scheme, and that the
> themselves are responsible for it. To do this, instead of storing a
> class' name symbol in its "name" instance variable, we can just store
> the shared-variable association that the compiled methods use (and
> used to be in the system dictionary).
So this means that the name would be a binding <name-pointer to self>
> When the compiler wants to find a class with some name in some
> source a
> human just wrote, it can search the class hierarchy from the root
> Object). As I discussed earlier here with Ralph Johnson, it's
> not as fast as a dictionary lookup, but it's acceptable (the compiler
> tends not to be a part of the system that needs every cycle
> squeezed out
> of it).
> other shared variables
> Anyway, back to the system dictionary. I addressed the associations
> there that refer to classes, but there are others. These are the other
> so-called "global" variables (like Display, the primary display) as
> as all the "shared pools" (like TextConstants and, strictly speaking,
> Undeclared). I think each global variable should be the responsibility
> of some class. So the primary display could be something you get by
> sending "primary" to DisplayScreen.
> Shared pools are dictionaries of shared-variable associations,
> to the system dictionary (in fact, I'd call the system dictionary just
> another shared pool). I know some think we should simply banish all
> shared pools, but I'll assume for the moment that we're keeping
> them. I
> find them useful, I just think some class should take
> responsibility for
> each one. I've added a "publishedPools" instance variable to Class,
> which stores all the shared pool dictionaries for which a class has
> responsibility (i.e., the class that introduced the pool into the
> system). I renamed the traditional "sharedPools" instance variable in
> Class to "receivedPools"; these are the pools that a class merely
> Finally, I renamed the "classPool" instance variable to
> "classVariablesPool", just to be clearer.
This is someone related.
I always thought that classVariables should be renamed SharedVariables.
I like that they did it in VW unifying SharedPools and SharedVariables.
I like the idea that we know the class introducing the Pools.
> When you want to use a shared pool, you access the pool by sending a
> message to the responsible class, rather than relying on its name
> a global variable.
> method references to "Smalltalk"
> So now we've got new homes for all the shared-variable associations
> which used to be reachable through the system dictionary. The other
> thing to do is refactor the methods which use the shared-variable
> association for the system dictionary itself (the methods which
> refer to
> "Smalltalk"). I'm working on this now.
In the latest version we fixed a lot of them: lot of the fixes were
fixed by using self environment.
Also lot of functionality of Smalltalk were successfully moved to
What was less satisfactory is in 3.8 and 3.9 is that the system is in
the middle of a refactoring.
Originally we were thinking that we could have Smalltalk as only a
namespace so we moved
most of the non namespace behavior to SmalltalkImage. But it failed
because people continued to add stuff there.
So I proposed that we create another class Namespace (Smalltalk would
delegate to it
for backward compatibility) and self environment would refer to it
and that we would move back the code of SmalltalkImage to Smalltalk
and that we rename SystemDictionary to reveal its real behavior
SmalltalkImage (or the mess).
> There are about a thousand of
> them in a "full" object memory, but for most of them it's clear which
> class should actually take responsibility. For example, there are
> several methods which (in my opinion) are rightly the
> responsibility of
> the Interpreter class (like the garbage collection messages).
Yes. You have also source management, system navigation, ...
Have you look at 3.8 or 3.9 because we cleaned a lot of them already.
> I've also written some refactoring tools that automate a lot of
> this (e.g., a tool
> which replaces the push of one literal variable with another when
> followed by the sending of a particular message).
> another reminder about live behavior transfer
> Some of these decisions would be problematic if we were limited to
> using source code ("fileouts") to transfer behavior between systems.
> Since Spoon can transfer methods directly, without recompilation (or
> even source code) and without referring to shared-variable names at
> it works (see the MethodLiteralTransmissionMarker hierarchy for
> why do this now
> This work was always lurking in the future, but now the issue is
> by my work on Naiad (Spoon's module system). I'm making a module which
> reattaches the primary display (the system is initially headless), and
> that meant deciding how to access it. Since access is traditionally
> through a global variable (Display), the can of worms was opened. :)
Craig do you only transfer method or also object?
Roel will start to work on a parcel like system for Squeak.
> Again, thanks in advance for any feedback or questions. I'm usually
> around on the Squeak IRC channel from 1700 to 0500 GMT, and I read the
> squeak-dev and Spoon lists.
More information about the Spoon