Thanks Bob,

I am curious about the original motivation. If I look at how Project
works now, and how I expect that they may have originally been intended
to work, it makes perfect sense that more than one Project might be
"running" concurrently, even if nobody has actually done anything with
that idea for that last 15+ years. Was that part of the idea behind
#doOneCycleInBackground?

Or am I reading too much into it?

Dave

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 07:08:13PM -0500, Bob Arning wrote:
> I doubt anyone was working on it in 2001 -- Andreas was probably just 
> updating how [A|a]ctiveHand was used. I put the halt in 
> #doOneCycleInBackground while getting multiple projects running 
> currently. Since nobody has complained about the halt and I don't see 
> any evidence it was used in earlier times, I'd not worry about it.
> 
> 
> On 11/11/17 4:53 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:
> >This looks like something that Andreas may have been working on circa 
> >2001, and I
> >see Dan Ingalls initial stamps from 1999.
> >
> >It looks to me like a mechanism for allowing a project other than the 
> >current project
> >to be running a UI process associated with a RemoteHandMorph, so I am 
> >envisioning
> >a Squeak image in which I am interacting with the current Project, while 
> >someone
> >elsewhere on the network might be remotely interacting with another 
> >project in
> >this same image.
> >
> >Am I guessing right?
> >
> >I stumbled across this while trying to tidy up unnecessary references to 
> >the
> >global World variable. Certainly if one wanted to have two projects active 
> >at
> >the same time (e.g. Project current and some other remotely controlled 
> >Project),
> >it would be good to avoid refrerences to a global World, hence my 
> >curiosity here.
> >
> >It does appear to be an unfinished experiment, given the self halt that 
> >appears
> >in WorldState>>doOneCycleInBackground.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> 

>