> On 22.09.2017, at 12:37, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 9/22/17, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22.09.2017, at 12:19, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Nicolas for the additional information. I think as well that
>>> it might be the best just to benefit from the work done in Pharo.
>>> 
>>> I understand that you mean we should delete the class SharedQueue2 in
>>> the image and replace it with a file in from the SharedQueue class
>>> from Pharo 6 which is an updated version.
>>> 
>>> BTW there are six instances of SharedQueue in a recent image and zero
>>> instances of SharedQueue2 in a current image.
>>> 
>>> On the other side there is the question about the benefit of
>>> SharedQueue2 for Squeak. It seems that there were no complaints in the
>>> last 10 years about remaining with SharedQueue.
>> 
>> I needed a SQ for Squeaksource in 2014, but one that is compatible with
>> a GemStone one. Essentially, I found the SharedQueue2 implementation more
>> helpful but feared that names would change in the future, hence I copied the
>> whole class…
> 
> OK, where did you get the copy of SharedQueue2 from?

It was in my squeak image (4.3 or so at that time i think)


> Compatibility with other Smalltalk dialects such as GemStone, Pharo is
> an issue of course. I do not know about Cuis.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 	-Tobias
>>> 
>>> --Hannes
>>> 
>>> On 9/20/17, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2017-09-20 19:56 GMT+02:00 H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/20/17, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Pharo list has some notes about this in March 2011 and Levente was
>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The issues are no longer accessible, e.g.
>>>>>> https://code.google.com/archive/p/pharo/issues/3342
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The pharo issue tracker has moved to fogbugz, but one needs to register
>>>> for
>>>> accessing...
>>>> If you seek sharedQueue or SharedQueue you'll see a lot of activity
>>>> 
>>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/3173/SharedQueue-ENH
>>>> (was https://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3125)
>>>> issue opened for tracking changes in Squeak
>>>> Igor claims its atomic-based queues are more robust under
>>>> heavy-concurrent-load
>>>> 
>>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/3390/have-a-look-at-sharedQueue-fixes-from-Levente
>>>> (was https://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3342)
>>>> issue opened for tracking changes in Squeak
>>>> Markus said SharedQueue were replace with SharedQueue2 in Pharo
>>>> It's not easy to find in which issue this was done exactly (the close
>>>> status are unclear to me)
>>>> 
>>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/3482/SharedQueue-Fixes
>>>> (was https://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3434)
>>>> same kind as #3173
>>>> 
>>>> etc many other similar issues... and then:
>>>> 
>>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4073/Integrating-Atomics
>>>> (was https://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4026)
>>>> tells that atomics was integrated in Pharo 3.0 originating from
>>>> MCHttpRepository
>>>>   location: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Atomics'
>>>>   user: ''
>>>>   password: ''
>>>> 
>>>> so maybe we can just pick current Pharo version along with tests and
>>>> avoid
>>>> more archeology
>>>> 
>>>> Nicolas
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/20/17, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just reposting the message
>>>>>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2017-
>>>>> September/195308.html
>>>>>>> below so that it gets a proper subject line.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note: SharedQueue and SharedQueue2 are both in the image.
>>>>>>> SharedQueue2 was included into Squeak version 3.9 by MarcusDenker
>>>>>>> (10-07-2005) for further testing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lex Spoon notes one year later that no problems have come to light. We
>>>>>>> should start migrating to this. All it requires is replacing
>>>>>>> SharedQueue by SharedQueue2.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Then two years later (12-17-2008)  Keith_Hodges  proposes a migration
>>>>>>> script
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "fix begin"
>>>>>>> Installer mantis bug: 1375 fix: 'M1375-SharedQueue2Enable.1.cs'.
>>>>>>> WorldState initialize.
>>>>>>> EventSensor initialize.
>>>>>>> "fix end"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We need somebody to have a look at this script
>>>>>>> 'M1375-SharedQueue2Enable.1.cs' if it is still good to do the task.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> BTW Pharo does not have two implementations of SharedQueue.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> HH.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> SharedQueue
>>>>>>> I provide synchronized communication of arbitrary objects between
>>>>>>> Processes. An object is sent by sending the message nextPut: and
>>>>>>> received by sending the message next. If no object has been sent when
>>>>>>> a next message is sent, the Process requesting the object will be
>>>>>>> suspended until one is sent.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> SharedQueue2
>>>>>>> An implementation of a shared queue based on class Monitor.  Clients
>>>>>>> may may place items on the queue using nextPut: or remove them using
>>>>>>> methods like next or nextOrNil.  Items are removed in first-in
>>>>>>> first-out (FIFO) order.  It is safe for multiple threads to access the
>>>>>>> same shared queue, which is why this is a "shared" queue.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [monitor] is used to synchronize access from multiple threads.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [items] is an ordered collection holding the items that are in the
>>>>>>> queue.  New items are added  at the end, and old items are removed
>>>>>>> from the beginning.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All methods must hold the monitor while they run.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Levente Uzonyi
>>>>>>> <leves at caesar.elte.hu>       Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:44 PM
>>>>>>> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>>>>>>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>>>>>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>>>>>>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, H. Hirzel wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   On 9/20/17, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       These methods were there to make it possible to migrate from
>>>>>>> SharedQueue
>>>>>>>       to SharedQueue2 in a live system.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Could you please give some more background information about this
>>>>>>> migration?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=1375
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       That migration has not happened yet,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Is there a reason not to do it after 5 years?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The mantis issue above has a few potential reasons.
>>>>>>> Another one may be that now there are other potential shared queue
>>>>>>> implementations to replace SharedQueue.