The interaction would be slower, and the installation / integration would
be more complex.  Back then, all we did was install the exe on the server.
 Client computer connection merely loaded the latest exe.  No need to
startup another app and share a socket, etc..  This would never work in
instances where you have 100 users all on different machines.  You'd have
one conflict after another.

Also, doing it in a client/server motif as you describe means that any
global state information made by one call would affect other calls.  In
true reentrancy each recursive call would essentially get their own VM.

Thanks.

Blake



On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Bob Arning <arning315 at comcast.net> wrote:

>  Seems like you could do that fairly easily without making the VM
> re-entrant (whatever that might mean/entail). If you thought of your Squeak
> app and your C app as two computers on a network, they could send each
> other requests and responses all day long. No magic required.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob
>
>
> On 12/3/12 10:10 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
>  I tried to integrate Squeak to a C based application more than six years
> ago.  The project failed because we were not able to have our application
> call Squeak, then have Squeak call the application, and then the
> application call Squeak again recursively.  An analysis of the Squeak VM
> revealed a kernel design consisting of a lot of global variables - quite
> unnecessarily.  The unnecessary use of global variables over a localized
> structure for example unnecessarily prevented the use of Squeak as an
> extension language (unless you had no recursion).  I spent several days
> trying to re-structure the Squeak kernel but I kept running into problems
> and just ran out of time.
>
>  As a side note, that company I was with ended up making a lot of
> investment in Scheme because we were easily able to integrate that language
> with our application.  Now, not only is Scheme used heavily within that
> company but many of their clients use it too to customize their application.
>
>  This brings me to my question, is COG reentrant?  If not, as the author
> of COG, I would think it relatively easy to restructure it to be so.  Such
> a design capability can make a huge difference to COG's acceptance to many.
>  It may even be the reason to switch to COG.
>
>  Just sharing some thoughts.  Thanks.
>
>  Blake McBride
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> ...in http://www.mirandabanda.org/files/Cog/VM/VM.r2628.
>>
>>  These fix a bug with pc mapping that could cause the Vm to crash on
>> simple loops containing arithmetic on constants (e.g. 1 to: 20 do: [:i|
>> 1=1]).  They also cause the instantiation primitives to pop all their
>> arguments rather than assume their argument count is 0 or 1.  More change
>> info available in the directory.
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20121203/e3b712cb/attachment.htm