[Vm-dev] [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format

[Igor Stasenko]

On 15 June 2012 17:26, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Remember, what i have been told when i implemented a language-side
>> scheduling, removing the
>> need of VM to even know that is Semaphore?
>> I been told *it is slow*. And this was the *only* argument against it,
>> why it is found unacceptable.
>>
>>
>> I think you might be misremembering. IIRC, the real argument was the risk (albeit expressed as performance concerns) of replacing VM-level scheduling by image-level scheduling without further ado. I don't recall that anyone had an objection to image-level scheduling as an option in addition to VM-level scheduling. In which case one can experiment with the implications and learn from the change in the environment without necessarily committing the production systems to an unproven feature.
>
> But that's what i did, i made VM which remain compatible to existing
> scheduling policy,
> but adds a way to have a language-side scheduling, you simply
> switching the scheduler object,
> and voila, you got an image-side scheduling.
> So, if you not sure about unproven part, you can keep running using a
> "proven" one..
>
>
> Right. I misremembered the implementation. But when I was re-reading the discussion just now, there was not a single voice being raised against your proposal. Not one. There was only applause and encouragement and excitement. People did comment on performance but in no way rejecting the implementation for it. Here is what searched for:
>
>   http://www.google.com/#q="new+scheduler"+site:lists.squeakfoundation.org
>
> Is it perhaps possible that you simply dropped forgot to push it all the way through to VMMaker? My search does not find any results on VM-dev which to me indicates that the code was probably never "on the table" for inclusion.
>

Perhaps i misinterpret the feedback of my work.. (i will take time to
reread the mail exchange)
But i stopped mainly because it was done and ready for integration.
The VM was working and everything was there.

Why i did not pushed it to VMMaker?
Because, i expected a _political_ decision whether we do it or not,
and that decision were not made.
And for sure, i never assuming that am in a position to force certain
changes to VM, without asking community about it.
And since my choice was obvious (otherwise why i spent time
implementing all of it?), a final decision apparently cannot be not on
my side.

So, IIRC, i didn't saw any response like: "Yes we should integrate that"
what i seen is "yeah it _could_ be an option".
I am not very good in english, but certainly, i can make a difference
between _could_ and _must_.

And of course, at any moment i can revive this work and synchronize it
with Cog VM, of course if there's a strong
opinion of majority, that this is the things we want to have, but not
the "well, maybe, perhaps, one day.. when you walk over my dead body"
:)

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
> --
> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
>

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.