September 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] OSProcess bug affecting OSP 4.4.4 on Windows

by Tudor Girba

Thanks a lot for fixing it. I just stumbled over the problem in Pharo and could benefit from your timely fix :). Cheers, Doru On 27 Sep 2011, at 16:52, David T. Lewis wrote: > If you are using OSProcess and have updated to version 4.4.4 posted > to SqueakSource 10-Sept-2011, please update once more to the latest > version 4.4.5 posted today. > > Version 4.4.4 contained a bug that hangs the image during startup on > Windows. Version 4.4.5 reverts the changes that cause the problem. > > Thanks to Radoslav Hodnicak for finding and reporting the problem, > and my apologies for any problems that this may have caused. > > Dave > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Don't give to get. Just give."

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] New problem with rehash [WAS] Re: MethodDictionary fast #rehash

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves(a)elte.hu> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > Hi. With this latest new #rehash there is a problem. I took Levente >> changes >> from Squeak. >> @Levente: the same happens in squeak so this may interest you. >> >> The #rehash is right now >> >> rehash >> >> | newInstance | >> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has >> the same capacity" >> 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >> (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >> newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >> self copyFrom: newInstance >> >> The problem is that #new: does: >> >> new: numberOfElements >> "Create an instance large enough to hold numberOfElements without >> growing. Note that the basic size must be a power of 2. It is VITAL (see >> grow) that size gets doubled if numberOfElements is a power of 2" >> >> | size | >> size := self sizeFor: numberOfElements. >> ^(self basicNew: size) initialize: size >> >> And #sizeFor: does: >> >> sizeFor: numberOfElements >> "Return the minimum capacity of a dictionary that can hold >> numberOfElements elements. At least 25% of the array must be empty and the >> return value must be a power of 2." >> >> ^1 bitShift: (numberOfElements * 4 // 3) highBit >> >> So....the problem is that you always increase the size of the MD. So when >> you do: >> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has >> the >> same capacity" >> if fact you are creating a MD of a different size, which means that the >> capacity is different and hence, using #copyFrom: will create inconsisten >> MD loosing methods, which causes the crash now. >> >> You could add a >> >> newInstance capacity = self capacity >> ifTrue: [ self copyFrom: newInstance ] >> ifFalse: [ self becomeForward: newInstance ] >> >> but that doesn't make sense because you always increase, so you will end >> up >> using always the become. >> >> I guess you can change to this: >> >> newInstance := self species new: self size. "Make sure it has the same >> capacity" >> >> but the problem is if in the future we change again #sizeFor. >> >> So....I think a correct solution could be something like this: >> >> newInstance := (self species basicNew: self basicSize) initialize: self >> basicSize. "Make sure it has the same capacity" >> >> or..move that to MethodDict class side and do: >> >> newInstance := (self species newWithExactBasicSize: self basicSize) >> "Make sure it has the same capacity" >> >> >> newWithExactBasicSize: basicSize >> >> ^(self basicNew: basicSize) initialize: basicSize >> >> >> what do you think ? >> > > Nice find. I think your last suggestion is the way to go, though I'd call > the method #newWithCapacity: instead of #newWithExactBasicSize:. > > Thanks, I also think the better solution is the last one. Ok, I will take the suggestion of #newWithCapacity: Now...what I am not sure is whether we could have this problem in another place apart from #rehash:. For example, what about #removeAll: ? If you can help me with that... Cheers! > > Levente > > > >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Nicolas Cellier < >>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)**gmail.com<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not quite sure it is correct. >>>> The problem is if another Process want to use this MethodDictionary >>>> while it is in an inconsistent state... >>>> Or if you are rehashing on of the MethodDictionary which contains one >>>> of the methods used by the rehashing itself. >>>> >>>> >>> Interesting. Thanks Nicolas for the pointer. >>> >>> >>> See recent changes from Levente in trunk. >>>> >>>> >>>> heheheheh it seems Levente is still reading the Pharo mailing list. >>> So...I took his commits of today, and I have made a Pharo change set. >>> I have put all the information here: >>> http://code.google.com/p/**pharo/issues/detail?id=4826<http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4826> >>> >>> Basically, he used #copyFrom: which is primitive and hence it avoids the >>> inconsistent state. >>> >>> If someone can check the changeset and give the OK, we can integrate it. >>> >>> Thanks a lot >>> >>> >>> Nicolas >>>> >>>> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Nicolas Cellier >>>>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)**gmail.com<nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi guys. I was checking MethodDictionary >> rehash and this is >>>>>>> >>>>>> terribly >>>> >>>>> slow >>>>>>> because of the #become. Then I saw #rehashWithoutBecome but it >>>>>>> >>>>>> answers >>>> >>>>> a >>>>>>> different instance. I need a #rehash that does the rehash in the real >>>>>>> object >>>>>>> and answers self. So...I need the regular #rehash but I want to avoid >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> #become. Is that possible somehow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the current implementation: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rehashWithoutBecome >>>>>>> >>>>>>> | newInstance | >>>>>>> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >>>>>>> >>>>>> it >>>> >>>>> has >>>>>>> the same capacity" >>>>>>> 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>>> (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>>> newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>>> ^newInstance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am terrible bad with Collection and friends, but cannot we do >>>>>>> soemthing >>>>>>> like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rehashWithoutBecome >>>>>>> >>>>>>> | newInstance | >>>>>>> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >>>>>>> >>>>>> it >>>> >>>>> has >>>>>>> the same capacity" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>>> (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>>> newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>>> (newInstance basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>>> self at: key put: (newInstance array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ^ self >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you should at least also copy the nil entries... >>>>>> Maybe something like >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>> self basicAt: index put: (newInstance basicAt: index). >>>>>> array at: index put: (newInstance array at: index)]. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good point. So....I was not that mistaken ;) >>>>> I have just replaced CompiledMethod >> hash with this new method and >>>>> at >>>>> least all the tests in MethodDictionaryTest are green. >>>>> Do you think this implementation is correct or there can be problems? >>>>> because it is really MUCH faster than the original one. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mariano >>>>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com<http://marianopeck.wordpress.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mariano >>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.**com <http://marianopeck.wordpress.com> >> >> > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] New problem with rehash [WAS] Re: MethodDictionary fast #rehash

by Levente Uzonyi

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi. With this latest new #rehash there is a problem. I took Levente changes > from Squeak. > @Levente: the same happens in squeak so this may interest you. > > The #rehash is right now > > rehash > > | newInstance | > newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has > the same capacity" > 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | > (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | > newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. > self copyFrom: newInstance > > The problem is that #new: does: > > new: numberOfElements > "Create an instance large enough to hold numberOfElements without > growing. Note that the basic size must be a power of 2. It is VITAL (see > grow) that size gets doubled if numberOfElements is a power of 2" > > | size | > size := self sizeFor: numberOfElements. > ^(self basicNew: size) initialize: size > > And #sizeFor: does: > > sizeFor: numberOfElements > "Return the minimum capacity of a dictionary that can hold > numberOfElements elements. At least 25% of the array must be empty and the > return value must be a power of 2." > > ^1 bitShift: (numberOfElements * 4 // 3) highBit > > So....the problem is that you always increase the size of the MD. So when > you do: > newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has the > same capacity" > if fact you are creating a MD of a different size, which means that the > capacity is different and hence, using #copyFrom: will create inconsisten > MD loosing methods, which causes the crash now. > > You could add a > > newInstance capacity = self capacity > ifTrue: [ self copyFrom: newInstance ] > ifFalse: [ self becomeForward: newInstance ] > > but that doesn't make sense because you always increase, so you will end up > using always the become. > > I guess you can change to this: > > newInstance := self species new: self size. "Make sure it has the same > capacity" > > but the problem is if in the future we change again #sizeFor. > > So....I think a correct solution could be something like this: > > newInstance := (self species basicNew: self basicSize) initialize: self > basicSize. "Make sure it has the same capacity" > > or..move that to MethodDict class side and do: > > newInstance := (self species newWithExactBasicSize: self basicSize) > "Make sure it has the same capacity" > > > newWithExactBasicSize: basicSize > > ^(self basicNew: basicSize) initialize: basicSize > > > what do you think ? Nice find. I think your last suggestion is the way to go, though I'd call the method #newWithCapacity: instead of #newWithExactBasicSize:. Levente > > > Cheers > > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < > marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm not quite sure it is correct. >>> The problem is if another Process want to use this MethodDictionary >>> while it is in an inconsistent state... >>> Or if you are rehashing on of the MethodDictionary which contains one >>> of the methods used by the rehashing itself. >>> >> >> Interesting. Thanks Nicolas for the pointer. >> >> >>> See recent changes from Levente in trunk. >>> >>> >> heheheheh it seems Levente is still reading the Pharo mailing list. >> So...I took his commits of today, and I have made a Pharo change set. >> I have put all the information here: >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4826 >> >> Basically, he used #copyFrom: which is primitive and hence it avoids the >> inconsistent state. >> >> If someone can check the changeset and give the OK, we can integrate it. >> >> Thanks a lot >> >> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Nicolas Cellier >>>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >>>>>> Hi guys. I was checking MethodDictionary >> rehash and this is >>> terribly >>>>>> slow >>>>>> because of the #become. Then I saw #rehashWithoutBecome but it >>> answers >>>>>> a >>>>>> different instance. I need a #rehash that does the rehash in the real >>>>>> object >>>>>> and answers self. So...I need the regular #rehash but I want to avoid >>>>>> the >>>>>> #become. Is that possible somehow? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the current implementation: >>>>>> >>>>>> rehashWithoutBecome >>>>>> >>>>>> | newInstance | >>>>>> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >>> it >>>>>> has >>>>>> the same capacity" >>>>>> 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>> (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>> newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>> ^newInstance >>>>>> >>>>>> I am terrible bad with Collection and friends, but cannot we do >>>>>> soemthing >>>>>> like this: >>>>>> >>>>>> rehashWithoutBecome >>>>>> >>>>>> | newInstance | >>>>>> newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >>> it >>>>>> has >>>>>> the same capacity" >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>> (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>> newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>>> (newInstance basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >>>>>> self at: key put: (newInstance array at: index) ] ]. >>>>>> >>>>>> ^ self >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess you should at least also copy the nil entries... >>>>> Maybe something like >>>>> >>>>> 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >>>>> self basicAt: index put: (newInstance basicAt: index). >>>>> array at: index put: (newInstance array at: index)]. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good point. So....I was not that mistaken ;) >>>> I have just replaced CompiledMethod >> hash with this new method and at >>>> least all the tests in MethodDictionaryTest are green. >>>> Do you think this implementation is correct or there can be problems? >>>> because it is really MUCH faster than the original one. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mariano >>>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mariano >>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

Sept. 27, 2011

[Pharo-project] OSProcess bug affecting OSP 4.4.4 on Windows

by David T. Lewis

If you are using OSProcess and have updated to version 4.4.4 posted to SqueakSource 10-Sept-2011, please update once more to the latest version 4.4.5 posted today. Version 4.4.4 contained a bug that hangs the image during startup on Windows. Version 4.4.5 reverts the changes that cause the problem. Thanks to Radoslav Hodnicak for finding and reporting the problem, and my apologies for any problems that this may have caused. Dave

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [Vm-dev] Re: windows vm to open large images

by Igor Stasenko

On 27 September 2011 16:31, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi again, > > Sorry for the noise. No problem. :) > The reason the image broke was an outdated version of OSProcess. > > Both the Elliot's Cog VM and the released Pharo Cog VM open the image without problems. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 27 Sep 2011, at 16:04, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am raising the issue regarding opening large images (400+ MB) on Windows. I currently have a Pharo 1.3 image and I cannot load it anymore once I save it. The behavior is rather odd now: it shows the window and then it crashes silently without leaving anything behind. >> >> Igor provided a fix some months ago, but it seems it is not in the released Cog VM (neither the one from the Pharo website 13307, nor the latest one of Elliot). So: >> - Igor, do you know what is the status of your fix? >> - Where can I actually get a Stack VM for Windows (I tried all places I could think of and did not find it)? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Yesterday is a fact. >> Tomorrow is a possibility. >> Today is a challenge." >> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "One cannot do more than one can do." > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] windows vm to open large images

by Tudor Girba

Hi again, Sorry for the noise. The reason the image broke was an outdated version of OSProcess. Both the Elliot's Cog VM and the released Pharo Cog VM open the image without problems. Cheers, Doru On 27 Sep 2011, at 16:04, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > I am raising the issue regarding opening large images (400+ MB) on Windows. I currently have a Pharo 1.3 image and I cannot load it anymore once I save it. The behavior is rather odd now: it shows the window and then it crashes silently without leaving anything behind. > > Igor provided a fix some months ago, but it seems it is not in the released Cog VM (neither the one from the Pharo website 13307, nor the latest one of Elliot). So: > - Igor, do you know what is the status of your fix? > - Where can I actually get a Stack VM for Windows (I tried all places I could think of and did not find it)? > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Yesterday is a fact. > Tomorrow is a possibility. > Today is a challenge." > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "One cannot do more than one can do."

Sept. 27, 2011

[Pharo-project] windows vm to open large images

by Tudor Girba

Hi, I am raising the issue regarding opening large images (400+ MB) on Windows. I currently have a Pharo 1.3 image and I cannot load it anymore once I save it. The behavior is rather odd now: it shows the window and then it crashes silently without leaving anything behind. Igor provided a fix some months ago, but it seems it is not in the released Cog VM (neither the one from the Pharo website 13307, nor the latest one of Elliot). So: - Igor, do you know what is the status of your fix? - Where can I actually get a Stack VM for Windows (I tried all places I could think of and did not find it)? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."

Sept. 27, 2011

[Pharo-project] New problem with rehash [WAS] Re: MethodDictionary fast #rehash

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi. With this latest new #rehash there is a problem. I took Levente changes from Squeak. @Levente: the same happens in squeak so this may interest you. The #rehash is right now rehash | newInstance | newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has the same capacity" 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. self copyFrom: newInstance The problem is that #new: does: new: numberOfElements "Create an instance large enough to hold numberOfElements without growing. Note that the basic size must be a power of 2. It is VITAL (see grow) that size gets doubled if numberOfElements is a power of 2" | size | size := self sizeFor: numberOfElements. ^(self basicNew: size) initialize: size And #sizeFor: does: sizeFor: numberOfElements "Return the minimum capacity of a dictionary that can hold numberOfElements elements. At least 25% of the array must be empty and the return value must be a power of 2." ^1 bitShift: (numberOfElements * 4 // 3) highBit So....the problem is that you always increase the size of the MD. So when you do: newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure it has the same capacity" if fact you are creating a MD of a different size, which means that the capacity is different and hence, using #copyFrom: will create inconsisten MD loosing methods, which causes the crash now. You could add a newInstance capacity = self capacity ifTrue: [ self copyFrom: newInstance ] ifFalse: [ self becomeForward: newInstance ] but that doesn't make sense because you always increase, so you will end up using always the become. I guess you can change to this: newInstance := self species new: self size. "Make sure it has the same capacity" but the problem is if in the future we change again #sizeFor. So....I think a correct solution could be something like this: newInstance := (self species basicNew: self basicSize) initialize: self basicSize. "Make sure it has the same capacity" or..move that to MethodDict class side and do: newInstance := (self species newWithExactBasicSize: self basicSize) "Make sure it has the same capacity" newWithExactBasicSize: basicSize ^(self basicNew: basicSize) initialize: basicSize what do you think ? Cheers On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not quite sure it is correct. >> The problem is if another Process want to use this MethodDictionary >> while it is in an inconsistent state... >> Or if you are rehashing on of the MethodDictionary which contains one >> of the methods used by the rehashing itself. >> > > Interesting. Thanks Nicolas for the pointer. > > >> See recent changes from Levente in trunk. >> >> > heheheheh it seems Levente is still reading the Pharo mailing list. > So...I took his commits of today, and I have made a Pharo change set. > I have put all the information here: > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4826 > > Basically, he used #copyFrom: which is primitive and hence it avoids the > inconsistent state. > > If someone can check the changeset and give the OK, we can integrate it. > > Thanks a lot > > >> Nicolas >> >> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Nicolas Cellier >> > <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2011/9/17 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >> >> > Hi guys. I was checking MethodDictionary >> rehash and this is >> terribly >> >> > slow >> >> > because of the #become. Then I saw #rehashWithoutBecome but it >> answers >> >> > a >> >> > different instance. I need a #rehash that does the rehash in the real >> >> > object >> >> > and answers self. So...I need the regular #rehash but I want to avoid >> >> > the >> >> > #become. Is that possible somehow? >> >> > >> >> > This is the current implementation: >> >> > >> >> > rehashWithoutBecome >> >> > >> >> > | newInstance | >> >> > newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >> it >> >> > has >> >> > the same capacity" >> >> > 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >> >> > (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >> >> > newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >> >> > ^newInstance >> >> > >> >> > I am terrible bad with Collection and friends, but cannot we do >> >> > soemthing >> >> > like this: >> >> > >> >> > rehashWithoutBecome >> >> > >> >> > | newInstance | >> >> > newInstance := self species new: self basicSize - 1. "Make sure >> it >> >> > has >> >> > the same capacity" >> >> > >> >> > 1 to: self basicSize do: [ :index | >> >> > (self basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >> >> > newInstance at: key put: (array at: index) ] ]. >> >> > >> >> > 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >> >> > (newInstance basicAt: index) ifNotNil: [ :key | >> >> > self at: key put: (newInstance array at: index) ] ]. >> >> > >> >> > ^ self >> >> > >> >> >> >> I guess you should at least also copy the nil entries... >> >> Maybe something like >> >> >> >> 1 to: newInstance basicSize do: [ :index | >> >> self basicAt: index put: (newInstance basicAt: index). >> >> array at: index put: (newInstance array at: index)]. >> >> >> > >> > >> > Good point. So....I was not that mistaken ;) >> > I have just replaced CompiledMethod >> hash with this new method and at >> > least all the tests in MethodDictionaryTest are green. >> > Do you think this implementation is correct or there can be problems? >> > because it is really MUCH faster than the original one. >> > >> > Thanks in advance >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for any help. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Mariano >> >> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Mariano >> > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Sept. 27, 2011

[Pharo-project] looking for Kent Beck, in his roll of MongoTalk creator/admin

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Well... I modified somethings in MongoTalk package, in order to make it work in my project (for instance "update" command was missing)... and maybe, as my project continues growing, some more changes will be needed. I would like to commit the changes in the MongoTalk repository, but then I realized I have no rights to write in the repository... also, I noticed there is no license information provided (dumb me, I assumed it was MIT) and I need to know it before I can deliver my project :) So, I'm would like to define a couple of things: 1) license information (it would be really cool if it is MIT ;)) 2) write permission, if it is ok I to commit my changes there (a global Read/Write would also be cool, but not everybody âincluding meâ likes it everytime :) ) thanks, Esteban

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Webservices (any update)

by Guillermo Polito

A year ago I introduced SoapOpera into squeaksource... But he needs someone to take care of it :) since I've never had time to do it. http://www.squeaksource.com/SoapOpera On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:15 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote: > > > Whats used these days to connect to webservices using Pharo. > > Is it possible to generate ST classes from a WSDL > > and use them? > > Possible yes now there is no tools so far like in VW. > > > > > Thx > > T. > > -- > > Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir > > belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de > > > > >

Sept. 27, 2011