Hi all,
Thanks for your answers... I will try every one (I really need to get back
those objects)...
I think Ale is right and I made a mistake not been modular in my
application... but now is to late :(
After recover all (if it is possible), I will try some modularization...
which way do you recomend? ImageSegments seems the right one, but I really
don't know how to use it...

Thanks again,
Esteban

On Nov 28, 2007 10:48 AM, Alejandro F. Reimondo <
aleReimondo at smalltalking.net> wrote:

> Hi Esteban,
>
> If you has not compressed the changes file, the code can be recovered from
> there with a change set browser.
> In case it is not your situation and you need to dump some
> objects/information actually inside the image...
> Do you know how to build a VM ? (compile a patched VM to run your image)
> If you know how to doit, you can patch a primitive you are sure it is
> called
> by your image before crashing and try to activate another process running
> an
> evaluation of the code you want to evaluate to dump your code & objects
> (or
> repair the image, the last changes -after last recorded saveImage- can
> help
> you to know what has you broken there).
> I wish you good luck!
>
> The situation you have now IMHO is good to learn that working saving the
> image is not a convenient way to work (you have reached one of the
> situations that reveals this fact). It is reccomended to work investing
> efforts in modularization. From now you can evaluate the risks of
> investing
> efforts only in saving your image.
> The construction of modular systems requieres little efforts as
> demostrated
> for more than a decade and let you be sure that parts of your system can
> be
> assembled without risks (consider each time that a module is assembled in
> an
> image a test of conformance of the assembly energy requiered to put your
> parts in another system).
> If you work with your objects in (only) one image, you can construct a
> system and learn a lot  about the domain from doing that, but doing that
> way
> will not face you to the costs of putting your parts in the context of
> other
> image(s).
> The efforts put in modular composition of subsystems is related with this
> facts (energy requiered to assemble a system from its "parts") and not
> with
> sharing goodies with other people. If you consider modularity you will
> also
> evade the risks of loosing time, work and make your framework more
> appropiate to be bound to other image(s).
>
> cheers,
> Ale.
>
>
> > 2007/11/27, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com>:
> >> Hi all,
> >> I have an image that is not working anymore, and I can not take control
> >> from
> >> that (the image starts, but i can't press any key, not even cmd+.)
> >> Is there a way to load the image (as an ImageSegment or something like
> >> that)
> >> so I can recover the objects I need?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Esteban
> >> --
> >> "Querer es suscitar las paradojas"
> >> Camus. El míto de Sísifo.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Damien Cassou
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
"Querer es suscitar las paradojas"
Camus. El míto de Sísifo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20071128/6a106354/attachment.htm