[Squeakfoundation]re: Flow integration

[Andreas.Raab@gmx.de]

Hi Craig,

> > No. Those are my points exactly. Thanks for summarizing.
> 
> 	Not so fast... :)  I'd still like a response to my previous message to
> you
>
(http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeakfoundation/2002-November/000618.html, and included below).

I wanted to see what others think.

> > You fixed all references... you knew about.
> 
> 	That's not the end of the process. :)  I think you're missing my intent
> that those changes be temporary. The full integration process would go
> like this:

None of it changes the fact that if I load flow every last bit of the code
that I wrote and that uses sockets or files will immediately stop working.

I might also add that I see Mikes rewrite in a different way since even
though he's claiming that

> There is no such thing when you replace seriously broken code. Period.
> Which means that I conciously made the decision to not care if my 
> network rewrite breaks existing code (that is code currently not in the 
> image).

the chances of breaking code from what he did are much smaller - all of the
interfaces which used to be there in class Socket are still there so if
someone really needs a quick way of porting things forward, this is doable by
basically copying some code from the existing classes, or by providing a
compatibility package - the proposal of (for example) returning strings from the
exceptions raised is certainly not the Right Thing to do, yet it does provide an
"easy way out" for people who just need their stuff working.

> > ...why not just keep the two hierarchies just completely disjunct?
> 
> 	Because, e.g., I think what I call "Socket" should be called "Socket".
> :)  As I see it, there is a genuine ontological conflict between the
> current mainstream implementation and mine. And after renaming the
> mainstream classes (which, for the reasons above, I think is no big
> deal), they *are* disjunct. :)

I tried to avoid the term "name space" in my original message because I
agree with you here. It is important that things have the right names and with
name spaces we'd be able of achieving this. I am still hoping that we'll get
them before too long (since we're working on some of these aspects in Croquet),
yet, up to the point where we have them, we need a workable solution. And
given the current usage patterns it appears to me that it'd be unwise if we
rename the things that are already there.

> > Well if flow can't support those [thread-less] platforms at all...
> 
> 	Um, I just said I think it can...

Sorry typo - this should have read "if flow COULD not support them".

> 	But while you're waiting, please feel free to send tests that *you*
> would consider meaningful. :)

Hey, _you_ were claiming that flow would be more efficient (read the first
sentence of your own comparison ;)

> > The question was more like: Is it possible to write an implementation
> > of the socket primitives that adheres exactly to the specification of
> > the primitives which may not use a threaded implementation?
> 
> 	Sure, but I'd rather keep that simulation at the more malleable
> object-memory level.
> 
> > Typically, it's best to stay compatible at the primitive level so that
> > if there's a certain behavior expected by the ST code it should be
> > able to rely on it.
> 
> 	Sure again, but Flow's design allows that behavior to be provided
> either by "auxilliary primitives" (which aren't called directly by
> Smalltalk code) or by yet more Smalltalk code. I'd rather go the
> Smalltalk route.

But effectively this means a different set of primitives doesn't it? I'm not
sure I understand correctly what you're trying to say here. My question was:
Can I implement the primitives without using OS level threads. Your answer
sounds like a no, as if you would have to have different primitives and then
simulate the former OS-level threading in Squeak. Is this correct?! 

> 	By the way, HP-UX has had perfectly fine pthreads since version 11.0
> (two years ago). (Before that, it had DCE threads, which were indeed
> problematic.)

Ah, well, it's been a while since I looked at HP-UX ;-)

Cheers,
  - Andreas

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!