- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] how to update monticello cypress repository downloaded from github?

by Dale Henrichs

Nicolas and Peter, At this point, I assume that both of you using metadata-less GitFileTree repositories and you have the choice of either replacing the github:// scheme with a gitfiletree:// scheme so that GitFileTree is used to load the packages or using "the Cypress package extension" for Metacello which I've recently announced[1]. The down-side for both of these is that either GitFileTree and/or the latest version of Metacello has to be loaded into the users image and that may not be practical, since neither is included in the base release for Pharo .. The final option is to stop using metadata-less GitFileTree ... Dale [1] http://forum.world.st/ANN-Metacello-support-for-GitFileTree-metadata-less-m… On 07/17/2016 02:34 PM, Nicolas Passerini wrote: > It happens the same to me. > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com > <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Metacello new > baseline: 'FileDialog'; > repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository'; > get; > load. > > > Using #get indeed downloads a fresh copy, however the code in > Pharo is _not_ reloaded. > Is this a bug? Or do I need to do yet something more to reload > that too? > > Peter > >

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 18.07.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > > Thank's > > 2016-07-18 12:19 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: > Awesome! I'll immediately will stop all my important work and start playing with it. I'm really interested how it will perform over high latency connections. > > Yes, please report your experience. > > Currently all optimisations are done on minimizing network communication without tools modification. So debugger is same GTDebugger but communication is configured accordingly to debugger behaviour. For example when debugger requests suspendedContext of remote process server returns context proxy together with method, receiver, receiver class name and other properties which debugger is going to use. > Other optimization could be done on protocol level. Now transferred objects are traversed twice: by Seamless and by Fuel. It could be merged somehow. > Ok, I experimented a bit with network qualities. I just tested connecting and executing 3 + 4 on the remote side. Connecting transfers already 2-4kb of data which should add some latency when the network is bad. Local wifi and DSL connections work ok for the simple case because latencies are low. On a 3G network it can take between 4 and 7 seconds to establish the connection and around half a second to execute 3 + 4. I defined a bad mobile network with 20kb/s bandwidth, 10% packet loss and a delay of 100ms in transmitting. This is equally for down and up directions. The connection time raises to 11 seconds and the execution of 3 + 4 to 4 seconds. In order to be able to test I needed to tweak BasysNetwork>>#initialize to set a timeout greater than 45 milliseconds which is pretty low. Usual timeout settings for browsers and mobile applications are around 30 seconds. I raised it to 10 seconds in order to test the bad network. To me the results are more or less expected. Well, I hoped they would be much better :) It works reliably even over slow networks. The main problem is that when it comes to remote debugging environments or browsers the number of message sends is quite high. So it is to see what kind of environment these tools can serve. For sure there is plenty of space to optimize (I hope). I did the tests with bad/mobile networks just get a clear mark where it cannot be used. To me personally the benchmark is DSL upload speeds. If it is doable over these (could be 256k/s) I can connect from the office (DSL down) the my little devices at home (DSL up) ;) Anyway, it is a wonderful tool I was waiting for so long. Thanks, Norbert

July 18, 2016

git iceberg and gitfiletree

by Peter Uhnak

Hi, since my question in the bugtracker went under the radar, I am asking here. What is the underlying export format of iceberg? Is it compatible with gitfiletree? Is it (would it be) possible to use one alongside the other? Because even now iceberg seems like much better choice in some respects (from my limited testing). So it would be cool if I could use that, and if there were issues I could always fall back to gitfiletree. Thanks, Peter

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Ben Coman

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ben. > > 2016-07-18 14:46 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com>: >> >> Cool stuff Dennis. Does it utilise the remote image's DebuggerUI, or >> DebuggerSession directly? i.e. Is the aim to remotely debug a >> headless/UI-less image? This could open up some great possibilities >> running a minimal image on embedded hardware. > > > Local debugger is opened on remote process. No UI needed to work with remote > image. > Also there is command line option to start image with running server: > > ./pharo PharoWithServer.image debuggerServer --port=40423 > > With Marcus we played with beaglebon device. It works fine like in my demo. I've been meaning to get a BBB. I looks like bit better platform for an industrial controller / robotics than the Rpi - in particular its Programming Realtime Unit. Knowing someone else has one maybe I'll get one now. In the back of my mind I've been considering whether its PRU could be modelled as a CPU target for Slang , so Slang could be re-purposed from just compiling VM, to compiling embedded programs for the PRU, developed from within Pharo and loaded on the fly into the PRU. >> >> When I read "Async evaluation ... does not wait for a result" I wonder >> if there a particular need for the fork is used here?... >> debugger evaluateAsync: [ [1/0] fork ]. >> > > Yes, it looks strange. Now all remote requests are executed such way that > errors will be returned as SeamlessRemoteException and server signaller > process will die. So instead of debugger with failed remote expression you > will see debugger with local process which performed remote message send > (but in case of async evaluation no result will returned to client and error > will be just ignored). To escape such "exception handler" fork is needed. > Fork will lead to unhanded error which will ask registered remote debugger > to debug it. Could you not just fork at the remote side? Perhaps the invocation would be #evaluateFork: > It was simplest strategy for error handling and in future it is probably > possible to implement real smalltalk semantics over distributed errors. > >> >> >> An interesting proof demonstration would be when setting up the server >> image do... >> Smalltalk at: #whoami put: #IAmTheServer >> >> then in the client do... >> debugger evaluate: [ Smalltalk at: #whoami ] > > > It works exactly like you want. Evaluation scripts transfer block to remote > side by value. And for blocks "by value" means transfer all literals as > "well known objects" (which are known on remote side). If globals not exist > on remote side then error will be returned. Some literals could be > transferred by reference. For example workspace variables. > >> >> >> although maybe its hard to bind to the remote Smalltalk rather than >> the local one? >> What is the tradeoff of the #evaluate: parameter being a string rather >> than a block? > > > In this case you can't execute scripts which reference local objects like > self, temps or workspace variables. Also it would be impossible to implement > non local return with regular semantics. > >> >> Without having looked at the Seamless mechanism, intuitively there >> would seem some benefit having the remote system compile the string to >> bind to the remote classes. > > > There is scenario which needs to be covered: debugging images which has no > compiler. I probably will work on it at some point. > >> >> Another interesting demo might be remotely evaluating... >> Object inform: 'Test' >> and the notification showing up on the remote (if indeed that is the >> desired behaviour) > > Yes, it works: https://youtu.be/Aop7KOGOFN0 HAharrrgh!! Thats *very* cool indeed !! cheers -ben

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi Ben. 2016-07-18 14:46 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com>: > Cool stuff Dennis. Does it utilise the remote image's DebuggerUI, or > DebuggerSession directly? i.e. Is the aim to remotely debug a > headless/UI-less image? This could open up some great possibilities > running a minimal image on embedded hardware. > Local debugger is opened on remote process. No UI needed to work with remote image. Also there is command line option to start image with running server: ./pharo PharoWithServer.image debuggerServer --port=40423 With Marcus we played with beaglebon device. It works fine like in my demo. > > > When I read "Async evaluation ... does not wait for a result" I wonder > if there a particular need for the fork is used here?... > debugger evaluateAsync: [ [1/0] fork ]. > > Yes, it looks strange. Now all remote requests are executed such way that errors will be returned as SeamlessRemoteException and server signaller process will die. So instead of debugger with failed remote expression you will see debugger with local process which performed remote message send (but in case of async evaluation no result will returned to client and error will be just ignored). To escape such "exception handler" fork is needed. Fork will lead to unhanded error which will ask registered remote debugger to debug it. It was simplest strategy for error handling and in future it is probably possible to implement real smalltalk semantics over distributed errors. > > An interesting proof demonstration would be when setting up the server > image do... > Smalltalk at: #whoami put: #IAmTheServer > > then in the client do... > debugger evaluate: [ Smalltalk at: #whoami ] > It works exactly like you want. Evaluation scripts transfer block to remote side by value. And for blocks "by value" means transfer all literals as "well known objects" (which are known on remote side). If globals not exist on remote side then error will be returned. Some literals could be transferred by reference. For example workspace variables. > > although maybe its hard to bind to the remote Smalltalk rather than > the local one? > What is the tradeoff of the #evaluate: parameter being a string rather > than a block? > In this case you can't execute scripts which reference local objects like self, temps or workspace variables. Also it would be impossible to implement non local return with regular semantics. > Without having looked at the Seamless mechanism, intuitively there > would seem some benefit having the remote system compile the string to > bind to the remote classes. > There is scenario which needs to be covered: debugging images which has no compiler. I probably will work on it at some point. > Another interesting demo might be remotely evaluating... > Object inform: 'Test' > and the notification showing up on the remote (if indeed that is the > desired behaviour) > Yes, it works: https://youtu.be/Aop7KOGOFN0 > > > > and watch demo at https://youtu.be/SgFjgQpo_nU. > > I got a bit lost which one was client and which remote. Maybe the > next demo you could have the server and client side by side. A bit of > overlap should be okay but it would be useful for the debug > notification appearing in the client to be immediately visible when an > error is is caused in the server image. It would be intuitive if the > web browser fully overlapped the server image it connected to. >

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 18.07.2016 um 15:00 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > > > 2016-07-18 12:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: > Needless to say it runs only on pharo6? :) > > I make special version of Seamless which works with Pharo 5. So both Pharo 5 and 6 are now supported. Just use latest config of RemoteDebuggingTools. All tests are green. That's great, Denis!

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-07-18 12:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > Needless to say it runs only on pharo6? :) I make special version of Seamless which works with Pharo 5. So both Pharo 5 and 6 are now supported. Just use latest config of RemoteDebuggingTools. All tests are green.

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Ben Coman

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > Awesome! I'll immediately will stop all my important work and start playing > with it. I'm really interested how it will perform over high latency > connections. > > Well done, > > Norbert > > Am 18.07.2016 um 12:03 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > > I glad to release first version of RemoteDebuggingTools project. It allows > explore and debug remote images. > > You can read details at > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/07/remote-debugging-tools-is-ready.html Cool stuff Dennis. Does it utilise the remote image's DebuggerUI, or DebuggerSession directly? i.e. Is the aim to remotely debug a headless/UI-less image? This could open up some great possibilities running a minimal image on embedded hardware. When I read "Async evaluation ... does not wait for a result" I wonder if there a particular need for the fork is used here?... debugger evaluateAsync: [ [1/0] fork ]. An interesting proof demonstration would be when setting up the server image do... Smalltalk at: #whoami put: #IAmTheServer then in the client do... debugger evaluate: [ Smalltalk at: #whoami ] although maybe its hard to bind to the remote Smalltalk rather than the local one? What is the tradeoff of the #evaluate: parameter being a string rather than a block? Without having looked at the Seamless mechanism, intuitively there would seem some benefit having the remote system compile the string to bind to the remote classes. Another interesting demo might be remotely evaluating... Object inform: 'Test' and the notification showing up on the remote (if indeed that is the desired behaviour) > and watch demo at https://youtu.be/SgFjgQpo_nU. I got a bit lost which one was client and which remote. Maybe the next demo you could have the server and client side by side. A bit of overlap should be okay but it would be useful for the debug notification appearing in the client to be immediately visible when an error is is caused in the server image. It would be intuitive if the web browser fully overlapped the server image it connected to. cheers -ben

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by Denis Kudriashov

Thank's 2016-07-18 12:19 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > Awesome! I'll immediately will stop all my important work and start > playing with it. I'm really interested how it will perform over high > latency connections. > Yes, please report your experience. Currently all optimisations are done on minimizing network communication without tools modification. So debugger is same GTDebugger but communication is configured accordingly to debugger behaviour. For example when debugger requests suspendedContext of remote process server returns context proxy together with method, receiver, receiver class name and other properties which debugger is going to use. Other optimization could be done on protocol level. Now transferred objects are traversed twice: by Seamless and by Fuel. It could be merged somehow. > > Well done, >

July 18, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Ann] Remote debugging tools

by phil＠highoctane.be

Super cool! On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I glad to release first version of RemoteDebuggingTools project. It allows > explore and debug remote images. > > You can read details at > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/07/remote-debugging-tools-is-ready.html and > watch demo at https://youtu.be/SgFjgQpo_nU. > > Any feedback is welcome. > > Best regards, > Denis. > > >

July 18, 2016