[squeak-dev] MonticelloConfiguration and Installer questions
C. David Shaffer
cdshaffer at acm.org
Wed Sep 17 16:19:54 UTC 2008
Keith Hodges wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I just went back to your original simple fix to Installer, but changed
> MCConfiguration-#load to use MCVersionLoader. This will enable all users
> of mcm's to take advantage of atomic loading (not just Installer). I
> would be grateful if you could check if it works with your packages,
> just in case I did something stupid.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
>
Keith,
I patched your MCConfiguration patch (published to ss) and now the
configuration loads on the simple test cases I was using before. Now
I'm having a new problem, the class initialization order is somehow
messed-up. My code doesn't assume anything about the order of sending
initialize to classes in an individual package but my system (actually a
package that my system uses) assumes that packages loaded before it have
been initialized. I think that's a reasonable expectation. Using the
older MCConfiguration>>#load (djr.48), I get the correct initialization
behavior. By the way, my second patch produced the same errant behavior
(didn't notice it until testing my more complex configuration).
So, the original patch + the older MCConfiguration>>#load is good enough
for me for now. The patched Installer>>mcThing doesn't work correctly
if multiple packages, one of which is an MCM, are being loaded but I
think it will take a bit more design thinking to get that case right.
You could either:
1) Make MCConfiguration behave more like a version so it can be added to
the load
2) Make the loader understand the difference between a version and a
configuration
3) other possibilities?
David
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|