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?
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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>