On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 23:12 -0700, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> 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.
> 
Yes, but it need to access this particular piece of information from
several images. So I have to persist it outside the image and this
opens the problem for me. Using just the image wouldn't have me brought
to my very first problem ;))

Norbert