I'm not quite sure who's toes you mean - if you mean Craig as in author
of Flow, it sounds like the overlap isn't large, and AFAICT, you're
talking about it. 

If you mean the MouseGuides, er MouseKeepers, er something... then no
problem, there's simply no decision for us to make yet - we're waiting
for testing of your code and a proposal how to go about integrating your
code so it doesn't break stuff. 

Your code is marked alpha, and you've stated it doesn't work with
Celeste. Now that there's SM, there's simply no reason at all to put
alpha code in the image - the testing cycle can run much faster and
smoother on SM.

Abstractly, rewritten Sockets to raise exceptions and use the basic
socket instead of inheriting from it sounds like something we definitely
will want in the image, when it's ready.

To anyone that might enjoy trustworthy, well factored sockets in Squeak
- test this stuff. Read the code and let us know if there are problems.
I will clarify what I hinted at below. For something as big as this, it
*definitely won't* go into the image *unless* it is well tested and
found clean. Preferably with at least basic SUnit tests. 

The key to getting many things in the image is for people to bring their
stuff in ready, and for that to happen, everybody needs to help.

It's important to us not to keep people in suspense about whether things
will be accepted or not, or create ambiguities. So if something is still
unclear, please let us know...

Daniel

Michael Rueger <m.rueger at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm looking for testers for my network rewrite. I just realized, that I 
> didn't take into account some changes to e.g. Celeste that weren't in 
> the image I started with and I'm afraid there will be more glitches like 
> that. And bugs of course.
> 
> It would be great if people could enhance the SUnit suites I started, 
> especially adding tests for e.g. Celeste. At least as soon as I fixed 
> those aforementioned glitches.
> 
> danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > About the general Network stuff, I think you should talk to Craig (since
> > your work probably interacts somehow with Flow), and propose two, or
> > preferably one, action plan on what sockets should look like in 3.4/3.5,
> > and how we get there without messing all the clients up. The more of the
> > discussion happen on squeak-dev, the better.
> 
> I tried to decouple Socket and client implementation by basing the 
> clients on SocketStream. It should be fairly easy to replace the current 
> Socket implementation with something different (eg. like Flow :-) ) 
> without even touching the rest of the system.
> Craig (Hi Craig :-) ) already responsed in a different mail and we will 
> both work on making the two apporaches cooperate.
> Trying not to step on anybodies toes here but the decision has still to 
> be made if and which parts of flow or my stuff will finally end up in 
> the update stream.
> 
> > Small - just posting a fix to SMTP first would make sure it gets the
> > proper attention.
> > 
> > Edible - The more you make it clear how to use your version instead of
> > the existing one, the more likely someone will submit a patch to Celeste
> > to use your infrastructure, the more likely some people will switch to
> > using and thus testing it, the more likely it goes in the image.
> 
> The problem with the rewrite is: it's a rewrite. Patches to anything 
> didn't cut it anymore. I tried to make everything work with the new 
> code, but as stated above, I missed some things and that's also why I 
> need some serious testing by other people on the list.
> 
> A "How to" guide is an excellent idea (documentation? I have to look up 
> the meaning of this word... ;-) ).
> 
> 
> Michael