January 2010 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] [BetaTesting] [ANN] Pharo1.0-10507-rc2dev10.01.2

by Miguel Enrique CobÃ¡ Martinez

El vie, 22-01-2010 a las 18:45 -0600, Miguel Enrique CobÃ¡ Martinez escribiÃ³: > El vie, 22-01-2010 a las 18:40 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribiÃ³: > > This is weird...we have several tests failing, erroring, successing in > > different OS. > > > > Someone has already reported in windows, Laurent in Linux, and here is > > in mac. > > > > Can someone please put all the information together so that we know > > which tests are failing and in which OS. > > Debian GNU/Linux Squeeze amd64 > squeakvm -version: 3.11.3-2135 #1 XShm Wed Sep 16 14:25:10 PDT 2009 gcc > 4.3.3 > > 8817 run, 8795 passes, 20 expected failures, 2 failures, 0 errors, 0 > unexpected passes > I forgot to attach the screen capture -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] [BetaTesting] [ANN] Pharo1.0-10507-rc2dev10.01.2

by Ramiro Diaz Trepat

What about the NetNameResolver issues ? 1852<http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1852&sort=-id&colspec=ID%20…> 1853<http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1853&sort=-id&colspec=ID%20…>

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] [BetaTesting] [ANN] Pharo1.0-10507-rc2dev10.01.2

by Miguel Enrique CobÃ¡ Martinez

El vie, 22-01-2010 a las 18:40 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribiÃ³: > This is weird...we have several tests failing, erroring, successing in > different OS. > > Someone has already reported in windows, Laurent in Linux, and here is > in mac. > > Can someone please put all the information together so that we know > which tests are failing and in which OS. Debian GNU/Linux Squeeze amd64 squeakvm -version: 3.11.3-2135 #1 XShm Wed Sep 16 14:25:10 PDT 2009 gcc 4.3.3 8817 run, 8795 passes, 20 expected failures, 2 failures, 0 errors, 0 unexpected passes > > Cheers > > Mariano > > 2010/1/22 laurent laffont <laurent.laffont(a)gmail.com> > On Linux, exupery VM > > Laurent > > 2010/1/22 Benoit St-Jean <bstjean(a)yahoo.com> > > Here's the first test run, on a fresh image (see JPEG > attached for results). > > > > I just unzipped the files, started Pharo and ran the > Test Runner. > > No preferences changed, nothing even evaluated in a > workspace! > > I'm on XP if that helps! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Copy/paste not works

by Igor Stasenko

2010/1/22 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > probably my mistake to remove SqueakClipBoard. > Sorry. > Could you file it out of a previous image and check if this is the problem? > If I could reproduce your problem I would have fixed it already. > Not until monday. Because the system, where i tested it was at my work, not home. > Stef > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 11161" >>>>> Â Â Â Â self withUpdateLog: 'Issue 765: Menu must not be zero size >>>>> Â Â Â Â Issue 1793: Â Â Remove SqueakClipBoard >>>>> Â Â Â Â Issue 1790: Â Â basicShallowCopy should be removed >>>>> >>>>> may be the SqueakClipBoard? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Everything worked fine even in 11161, >>>> until i saved image and restarted it. >>>> So, the bug seems lurking inside a startup/shutdown code. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs Eclipse

by Adrian Kuhn

Ralph Boland <rpboland@...> writes: > Unfortunately Smalltalk jobs in Canada are extremely rare so I can going > to have to program in C or Java or learn Python or Php or Ruby (any > recommendations as to which of those languages is the best) j As a Smalltalker you'll gonna love Ruby. --AA

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] about imageSegments

by Martin McClure

Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse > <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr <mailto:stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>> wrote: > > hi guys > > the more I read about imageSegments the more I would like to remove > them (or to package them > carefully - not sure that this is possible) and may be add a new > class to > just have one simple way of invoking the save (but not swapping back in) > > I think that mariano diving into them is a great phd exercise but on > the long run > I see it as a brittle mechanism. > > what do you think? > > > David Leibs' work on parcels in VW demonstrated that high-performance > packaging can be done with no VM support. Parcels are wonderful things, but my impression is that ImageSegment and parcels are designed to do rather different things. Parcels are used for physical delivery of packages (primarily code), whereas ImageSegments are for arbitrary graphs of objects (primarily not code, although some folks have tried to use ImageSegments for code). If parcels are designed to be more general than package delivery, I'd like to hear about it. I suspect that the only VM support that ImageSegments really need are the mark-sweep primitives to discover what objects are in the ImageSegment. All other algorithms, file format, etc. can (and maybe should) be redesigned to be better, but using the GC to find the objects is the heart of what ImageSegment is. > When you implement a binary > format, carefully designed for unpacking performance, at the image level > you get the freedom to add flexibility. I added shape change support to > parcels (and some higher level features that aren't relevant here) after > David had left. So I think the right approach is to reimplement image > segments entirely in the image without special VM support and add > metadata to the format (class shape information) and you'll probably end > up with something that is nearly as performant but much more flexible > and evolvable. > > > The two keys to the performance of David's design are the separation of > objects from their references and the btching of object allocations. A > parcel file starts with a number of allocations of well-known classes > (e.g. this parcel contains 17 large integers of the following sizes, and > 3 floats, and 17 symbols of the following sizes etc) followed by an > arbitrary number of "N instances of class X". So the unpacker populates > an object table with indices from 1 to N where N is the number of > objects in the parcel, but it does so in batch, spinning in a loop > creating N instances of each class in turn, instead of determining which > object to create as it walks a (flattened) input graph. After the > instance data comes the reference data, which slots refer to which > objects. Again the unpacker can spin filling in slots from the > reference data instead of determining whether to instantiate an object > or dereference an object id as it walks the input graph. So loading is > much faster than e.g. ReferenceStream-style approaches. I like that approach for a file format. It probably doesn't even make writing the file out much slower; the work has to be done in multiple passes, but each pass is simpler. And write speed is important: A parcel is typically written once and loaded many times, but one common pattern of ImageSegment use is write once, load once, discard, or even write once, load never. Regards, -Martin

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs Eclipse

by HernÃ¡n Morales Durand

Hi Ralph, Currently I know three job opportunities now open in Argentina, if you're willing to relocate I can help you with the hosting during the interviewing period. Please contact me privately for details (or any smalltalker in your position). Cheers, HernÃ¡n 2010/1/22 Ralph Boland <rpboland(a)gmail.com>: >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM, St?phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi ralph and eliot >>> > > Wow, for once one of my Ideas seems to be popular, > even if, apparently, it is not new. > > Some points: > > 1) Â I had not thought of the advantages of using Smalltalk to debug/develop > an application remotely. Â Commenters have made clear that the remote > aspect is very useful. Â I was just thinking of development in general where > my application and development images are on the same machine. > Does it make sense to first create a system having both a development > image and application image and once that is complete add the capability > to work remotely? Â Or is it best that both be implemented in parallel? > If the two tasks can be separated then I suggest we worry about achieving > the first while keeping the second in mind during development. > > 2) Â While this seems like an exciting project to me I do not have the necessary > skills/knowledge. Â The best I could offer would be as a serf in some > corner implementing > some component that I could handle. Â Actually I cannot really offer that because > I have my own open source project that I am working on for the next several > man years. Â Worse still I am going broke (Hi Keith) and desperately need to find > a job. Â Unfortunately Smalltalk jobs in Canada are extremely rare so I can going > to have to program in C or Java or learn Python or Â Php or Ruby (any > recommendations > as to which of those languages is the best) just so I can be employed. > I would really like to see this project go forward though. > I also much prefer some current version of Smalltalk make this > modification rather > than forking a new Smalltalk (call it Â Orapple?). Â Can this project go > forward in > stages, Â say in 4 stages, with a stage completed with each major release? > Could the project be a loadable package or are things too intimate for that? > > 3) Â I don't know much about stripping but I don't believe this idea removes it. > Even if the application and IDE are separated the application image is likely > to have many things not meant for the client such as application specific > debugging tools (tools separate from the IDE), Â testing software such > as SUnit tests, > features meant for one client but not another, Â etc. Â As pointed out, however, > stripping becomes much easier and effective if the IDE is separated > from the image. > Â Â An alternative to stripping is to have three images, Â The IDE > image, the application > development version image and the application release image. Â Then the > application release image never has anything in it that needs to be stripped > (ignoring the multiple client issue). > Admittedly, having three imaging running at the same time seems a bit wild. > To be honest, I really don't know if having a third image is a good idea. > I wouldn't worry too much about this though until we actually have a > much progressed > real project on our hands. > > Regards, > > Ralph Boland Â (Available Smalltalker, Â will travel anywhere) > > >>> > Nevertheless there are advantages to both and I wonder to what >>> > extent I can have my cake and eat it too Â (that would be an orapple >>> > cake I suppose). Â I should also point out that my discussion is abstract; >>> > I am asking if it would have been better if Smalltalk had >>> > been designed the way I propose and not should some Smalltalk, >>> > say Squeak, now be modified to be so. >>> >>> Yes I think that we can the best of both world. A minimal (but not smaller) >>> runtime with a good separation between the infrastructure for the runtime >>> and the loadeble ide and others. >>> >>> > The thing, particular to this discussion, about Eclipse that I like >>> > is that the Eclipse (image I will call it) is separate from the >>> > application (image I will call it). Â In Smalltalk the two images are >>> > combined. Â This means that a lot of code is encorporated >>> > into your application image that you may not want. >>> >>> I imagine that in Pharo in a couple of versions this will be different. >>> At least this is where we want to go. >>> >>> > Of course, before you release your application you can run a >>> > stripping program or process that strips out code that is not >>> > used in your application. (I have never done this but my >>> > understanding is that this is possible.) >>> >>> Stripping should not be the process. >>> >>> > Never having done this I assume that stripping is not that >>> > satisfactory because there is much code that cannot be >>> > stripped out; certainly unused methods and likely unused >>> > classes as well; the dynamic nature of Smalltalk means that >>> > much necessary information to determine that a method or >>> > class is not used is not available so such methods and classes >>> > must be included in the application release. >>> >>> Stripping in VW was not satisfactory not really easy. >>> >> >> It was not easy precisely because it had to strip out its own tools. Â If the >> tools are remote then stripping is much easier. Â I'm not proposing stripping >> as a standard step in deploying applications. Â I;m proposing stripping via >> remote tools as a way to get down to a small kernel image. Â Part of the >> difficulty in producing the small kernel image is needing to keep tools >> around so that the development system keeps working. Â This is all much >> easier if that development system is remote. >> >> >> >>> > Some may argue, that with all the memory processing power >>> > available today, who cares; but I care. Â For example, I would >>> > like to be able to put a Smalltalk application into a linux pipe >>> > as in: >>> > >>> > a | b > c >>> > >>> > where a or b or both are applications written in Smalltalk. >>> >>> me too :) >>> >>> > Similarly I would like to use Smalltalk applications in bash (Linux) >>> > shells scripts or use it in other scripting languages. So it >>> > may be important that my image not be unnecessarily >>> > large as getting it started may take longer than what it >>> > does once it is started. >>> >>> Yes we want that too. So any help in that direction is welcomed. >>> >>> > Of course I could use GNU Smalltalk for this but is it really >>> > necessary that I know/use two smalltalks? >>> > >>> > I think the Eclipse model suggests an improvement to Smalltalk. >>> > It seems to me that when you run Smalltalk ideally you would >>> > run two images. Â One would be the development environment image >>> > and the other would be the application image. Â When you started >>> > a new project you would choose from a selection of start images >>> > each including some subset of the development classes you >>> > expect to need. >>> >>> for minimal image to work, we need a way to manage parts >>> this is why metacello is important. Because you want to have ways to build >>> coherent images out of components with dependencies. >>> This is just because of that that we did not started to heavily remove >>> packages from the image. >>> >>> > I can't speak in detail to the Firewall work done at Digitalk by people >>> like Steve Messick, but they did get stuff done in the late 90's, although I >>> don't think anything was productised. Â I think they made the mistake of >>> focussing on being able to produce very small executables rather than just >>> separating the development and deployment images. Â I think Steve was able to >>> produce a tiny executable that only contained SmallInteger and hence was >>> able to eliminate tagged pointers and method lookup. Â But the focus on >>> optimization was I think a step too far. >>> >>> + 1. >>> >>> > One thing I remember was that the communications stub in the deployment >>> image was in the VM, not in Smalltalk code, again I think a mistake. Can >>> anyone from Digitalk put flesh on these bones? >>> ? >>> >>> eliot what is the communications stub >>> >> >> Is is some code that sits on a socket in the target image and receives >> remote message send requests from the UI image, evaluates them and returns >> the results. Â So it is a minimal communications port through which the UI >> can send messages to objects in the target image. Â It should be written >> entirely in Smalltalk for flexibility and simplicity. Â We don't need to get >> to 100's of bytes of image (e.g. being able to implement the unix mv >> command) we need to get down below 1Mb. >> >> I think Craig has such a remote messaging scheme in Spoon. >> >> >> >>> > We spent a lot of time discussing doing this in the VisualWorks team >>> about 10 years ago but as far as I'm aware none of it was realised. >>> Â Splitting tools UIs from the image under development (the target image) was >>> a major design goal behind OpenTalk, the distributed messaging framework >>> that Xu Wang did. Â We had the idea of the Model in an MVC triad being the >>> interface between the UI and target images, the natural point at which one >>> would define an API narrow enough to be efficiently distributed. Â If the API >>> is designed appropriately one would be exchanging symbols (class names, >>> selectors etc) not complex objects (classes, compiled methods) and that >>> because symbols and numbers are immutable they can be passed by value. >>> > >>> > We had the idea of the model being split in two, one half being specific >>> to a tool and the same whether one was in a single image or in the ui/target >>> pair, and the other half being an adaptor to either the local image or the >>> remote target. Â This adaptor would have sat between a model and some complex >>> object graph (like the class hierarchy) and defined the entire API through >>> which the object graph was accessed, narrowing the interface to make it >>> suitable for distribution, and doumenting the interface to make it easier to >>> understand. Â Vassili named these things between the model and an object >>> graph TTIBs for "The Things In Between". >>> >>> Was using distribution just one way to make sure that your two systems were >>> decoupled? >>> Because we could achieve the same using seaside? or >>> >> >> Exactly. Â The TTIB serves as a specification and a filter. Â But it is >> independent of the transport. Â Seaside is a valid transport. Â If things are >> done right one can have many different kinds of UI. Â But one is making the >> choice that the transport is Smalltalk messages over some non-Smalltalk >> stream. Â No one is contemplating using SOAP or CORBA or... (I hope). >> >> >>> > We very much wanted to produce a set of tools in a tools UI image that >>> could be targetted either at itself or at a remote target, and wanted to be >>> able to attach the tools image to a remote target dynamically (which we >>> called "dynamic capitation", for dynamically gaining a head) so that one >>> could have full debuggability on a remote image deployed in the field. >>> >>> :) >>> I would really like to know what are the issue at the level of the >>> Display.... VM code. What are the existing hypotheses >>> that have to be broken. Like global access to sensor or >>> >> >> Yes, lots of things break potentally. Â Transcript, self confirm: etc. Â Part >> of the challenge is in coming up with "pluggable" replacements. Â So that for >> example Transcript in the target image is something that sends its output to >> stdout until one attaches a tools UI, at which it becomes something that >> sends its output to the Transcript in the UI image. Â This takes some thought >> :) >> >> >>> Alas we never managed to get the priority of the project high enough to >>> actually commit major resources to it. Â There were always more pressing more >>> mundane things to do. Â Frustration at not doing things like this was in part >>> behind my leaving Cincom. Â Xu got quite far with a prototype, demonstrating >>> things like a distributed inspector that allowed one to walk though an >>> object graph spanning more than one image. Â The inspector would change >>> colour to indicate which machine the current object was one. >>> > >>> > >>> > Personally I think that Smalltalk is the ideal vehicle for this kind of >>> approach. Â We have lightweight remote messaging which is relatively easy to >>> implement. Â We have UI architectures which are relatively well-decomposed >>> and amenable to distribution. Â We have a reified exception system which is >>> not pushed down into hidden execution machinery and which has resume >>> semantics. Â We now have a much faster much more reliable internet. Â We could >>> relatively easily add things like delegation which can enable interesting >>> interleaving of tools and target images (see below). Â I think we could have >>> something truly revolutionary, the ability to interact with a remote >>> headless image that contains no development tools or UI frameworks and only >>> a relatively small communications module (remote messaging interface). Â This >>> would enable us to get to images of a few 10s or 100s of kilobytes. Â I >>> fervently hope you work on this. Â Lots of people want this. Â I was reading >>> Colin's Thin Air pages on wiresong yesterday and what he wants is realised >>> by this. >>> >>> Yes this would be good to have that. >>> I think that cleaning the left over of years of experimentations (which we >>> started with 3.6 Kernel Cleaning project >>> and continue in 3.9 and now is taking a large part in current pharo) is the >>> first phase so that we can >>> make sure kind of system happening. >>> >>> > If you do work on this remember your goals. Â The most important thing is >>> incremental deliverables and useful progress. Â Don't focus on whizzy >>> optimisations or cool demos (such as the inspector changing colour). Â Dn't >>> focus on arbitrarily complex topologies of remote images. Â Instead focus on >>> building a robust, well-engineered remote tools framework that just allows >>> one to do what one can do today in a browser and debugger, but remotely >>> between two images. >>> >>> We were thinking just about that with marcus and noury for mariano PhD. >>> this could be used to debug remote image running on robots. >>> >>> > I would start with browser, debugger and stripper, where stripper would >>> be something that allowed you to eliminate code from the target image using >>> the UI image to discover what was there and what was needed or not, i.e. >>> remote stripping, not the much trickier auto-stripping. >>> > >>> > On delegation I think one really cool thing is to wrap remote objects >>> with local development-only code. Â In a deployed image I would expect there >>> to be no inspectorClass methods or debugPrintOn: messages etc. Â The target >>> is lean and mean. Â Anything not needed for deployment except that which >>> supports adequate remote messaging is absent. Â So one wants to be able to >>> add methods that add debugging features to remote objects, and delegation is >>> the way. Â If the local handle on a remote object is wrapped by a delegate, >>> the delegate can implement the debugging methods. Â Catching >>> doesNotUnderstand: in the target mage can allow one to intercept >>> computations in the target and resume them in the development image. Â So >>> when connecting a tools image to a target one would layer tools and UI code >>> upon objects in the target but that code would reside only in the tools >>> image. >>> > >>> > Naming conventions in packaging, like splitting a Foo package into >>> Foo-Deployment & Foo-Development could help in making this kind of split >>> easy to navigate and conceptualise. Â So after producing the tools/target >>> split I would next focus on packaging tools, including analysis of call >>> graphs etc to help automating the deployment/development split. >>> >>> You forget deliver often :) >>> >> >> Right! >> >> best >> Eliot >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs Eclipse

by Adrian Kuhn

Ralph Boland <rpboland@...> writes: > I think the Eclipse model suggests an improvement to Smalltalk. > It seems to me that when you run Smalltalk ideally you would > run two images. One would be the development environment image > and the other would be the application image. You might want to take a look at V8, this is *exactly* what they do for debugging. Two object spaces are running (aka images) and one of them accesses the other one through mirrors. Speaking of which, the mirror paper by Dave Ungar and Gilad Bracha is all about separating development capabilities (ie reflection) from the domain objects of your application. Mirrors unify all kinds of code manipulation in one API, if Pharo had mirrors you could use the code browser to manipulate code in the same as well as any other image. --AA

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] about imageSegments

by Martin McClure

StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > hi guys > > the more I read about imageSegments the more I would like to remove them (or to package them > carefully - not sure that this is possible) and may be add a new class to > just have one simple way of invoking the save (but not swapping back in) > > I think that mariano diving into them is a great phd exercise but on the long run > I see it as a brittle mechanism. ImageSegments currently have some problems, but are useful. Rather than remove them, I'd like to see them evolve to be better-implemented as people have energy to work on them. If necessary, put a "not for the faint of heart" sign on them in the meantime. Regards, -Martin

Jan. 23, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Deadlock detection for testcases

by Adrian Kuhn

Lukas Renggli <renggli@...> writes: Please don't add this to TestCase. Sometimes I want to keep my > debuggers open. Also this slows running lots of tests considerably > down. > > I suggest that you create your own subclass of TestCase and override > runCase as such: > > runCase > [ super runCase ] > valueWithin: self expectedMaxRuntime > onTimeout: [ self failWithTimeout ] +1, being able to debug your tests is a must have. Please note that is also TAssertable >> #should:notTakeMoreThan: TAssertable >> #should:notTakeMoreThanMilliseconds: TestMatcher >> #runWithin: If you dont use akuhn/SUnit the first two methods are in TestCase and the third requires Phexample. cheers, AA

Jan. 23, 2010