On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:06:11AM +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 17:24 -0700, Alan Kay wrote:
> > Why not just use the fact that Smalltalk can compile and execute any 
> > string on the fly?
> > 
> Yes I recognized this after just "proving" my first idea.  I have
> to take one or two other approaches as I don't like my current one.
> 
> > Also take a look at the many ways in Smalltalk to serialize and 
> > deserialize objects. Some of the most recent has been done by Yoshiki Ohshima.
> > 
> I must confess I was too fast and too lazy (as often )while writing my
> postings. I don't need serialization/deserialization exactly. I only
> have objects which are persistent in a database and therefor have an
> id (could be any lookup key). I just need something to dump a derivate
> of the object (recognizing the object and the lookup key) and that is
> able to retrieve again at a later point. The harder point is that it
> would be useful to produce such derivates from a structure like a 
> collection or anything else. I don't know of any Smalltalk solution
> which helps me on that path, do you?

Well, the smalltalk image is a persistent database of code and
objects, and one can store any code or objects in it and use
or modify them while the system is running. I bet you are
already using it.

-- 
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/808