- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Problems with SmalltalkHub

by Serge Stinckwich

Thank you Max ;-) On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21.02.2013, at 16:10, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have some annoying problems with SmalltalkHub. >> >> I have made a project inside a team here: >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~UMMISCO/Kendrick/ >> >> Everytime I try to browse on Pharo 1.4 this repository, I have the >> following errors: >> ZnHttpSuccessful: 500 Internal Server Error >> >> but not for other projects on SmalltalkHub â¦ > > I could reproduce that with a 1.4 image. No clue why though. > >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://doesnotunderstand.org/ >> > > -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] Problems with SmalltalkHub

by Max Leske

On 21.02.2013, at 16:10, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have some annoying problems with SmalltalkHub. > > I have made a project inside a team here: > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~UMMISCO/Kendrick/ > > Everytime I try to browse on Pharo 1.4 this repository, I have the > following errors: > ZnHttpSuccessful: 500 Internal Server Error > > but not for other projects on SmalltalkHub â¦ I could reproduce that with a 1.4 image. No clue why though. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ >

Feb. 21, 2013

[Pharo-project] Problems with SmalltalkHub

by Serge Stinckwich

Hi all, I have some annoying problems with SmalltalkHub. I have made a project inside a team here: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~UMMISCO/Kendrick/ Everytime I try to browse on Pharo 1.4 this repository, I have the following errors: ZnHttpSuccessful: 500 Internal Server Error but not for other projects on SmalltalkHub ... Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Feb. 21, 2013

[Pharo-project] [update 2.0] #20561

by Marcus Denker

20561 ----- Issue 7557: Nautilus: halt in a test http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7557 Diff information: http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Nautilus-MarcusDenker.432.diff

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] projects to migrate/test on 2.0

by stephane ducasse

Ok I will add that to my todo. Stef On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Hi stef > > here is a list of the project we should validate for 2.0 > > Gofer > spec > project: 'Gofer Core' > with: [ > spec > className: 'ConfigurationOfGofer'; > versionString: '1.0-baseline'; > loads: #('Core'); > file: 'ConfigurationOfGofer'; > repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository'; > repository: 'http://seaside.gemstone.com/ss/metacello' ]; > > > Prof Stef > spec > className: 'ConfigurationOfProfStef'; > versionString: '1.0-baseline'; > file: 'ConfigurationOfProfStef'; > repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository'

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] spec className?

by stephane ducasse

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] A matter with Delays

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 February 2013 12:59, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Nice to know about this Smalltalk session. Didn't knew about that. > > BTW, did a debug it and it froze my image in a BlockClosure>>newProcess > wait for 1 hour and come back :) > Phil > > 2013/2/21 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: >> On 21 February 2013 12:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> Yes, I think you are right: the ambiguity is plain wrong, and even then not saving and continuing them sounds reasonable. >>> >>> But what about the inverse: you schedule something that should happen every hour or every day, you save/restart the image and with the new approach these would all run immediately, right ? >>> >> >> well, but in this case, once you will know that all delays is released >> on image restart, you can always check for session change before doing >> any action.. >> for example: >> >> [ >> | session | >> session := Smalltalk session. >> >> 1 hour asDelay wait. >> >> "is session changed?" >> session == Smalltalk session ifFalse: [ "perhaps we should abandon >> the loop here and reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of >> code" ]. >> >> self doSomething. >> >> ] repeat. >> >> >> Why this "perhaps we should abandon the loop here and >> reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of code".. >> because any resident code (like forked process with infinite loop) is >> a common source of nasty problems, >> unreliable behavior and usually hard to debug (especially over >> multiple sessions or when you changing the code which it should run).. >> >> And to my thinking, writing a proper session-aware code is a way to >> go, instead of relying on ambiguous things. >> >>> So not only would you kill delays that are too short (reasonable), but collapse the longer ones. >>> >>> In terms of design: I think the different behaviors should be implemented with different objects. >>> >>> On 21 Feb 2013, at 12:28, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> There is one thing which is IMO an over-engineering artifact: >>>> - when system goes down (image shutdown), all currently scheduled >>>> delays are "saved" >>>> and then when image starting up they are rescheduled again to keep >>>> waiting what time is left for delay.. >>>> >>>> But the problem is that it does not takes into account the total time >>>> an image was frozen, and the requirement is quite ambiguous: >>>> >>>> - if you put a process on a delay for 5 minutes, then immediately >>>> save image, and then restart it 10 minutes (or 1 year) after, >>>> should this delay keep waiting for 4 +x seconds which is left? Or >>>> should we consider this delay as utterly expired? >>>> (and as you can see, the answer is different, if we counting time >>>> using real, physical time, or just image uptime). >>>> >>>> And why counting image uptime? Consider use cases, like connection >>>> timeout.. it is all about >>>> real time , right here , right now.. will it matter to get socket >>>> connection timeout error when you restart some image 1 year after? >>>> Please, give me a scenario, which will illustrate that we cannot live >>>> without it and should count image uptime for delays, because i can't >>>> find one. >>>> >>>> If not, then to my opinion, and to simplify all logic inside delay >>>> code, i would go straight and declare following: >>>> - when new image session starts, all delays, no matter for how long >>>> they are scheduled to wait are considered expired (and therefore all >>>> waiting processes >>>> is automatically resumed). >>>> >>>> Because as tried to demonstrate, the meaning of delay which spans over >>>> multiple image sessions is really fuzzy and i would be really >>>> surprised to find a code >>>> which relies on such behavior. >>>> >>>> This change will also can be helpful with terminating all processes >>>> which were put on wait for too long (6304550344559763 milliseconds) by >>>> mistake or such. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] A matter with Delays

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 February 2013 12:49, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > I'd second that. > > There are two responsibilities mixed into one, which both currently > use one tool: Delay. > > BTW, Delay could have: > >>>elapsedImageTime >>>elapsedRealWorldTime >>>elapsedSinceImageStartTime > > which are three different things. > do you mean: delay waitImageTime delay waitRealTime delay waitInCurrentSession ? and delay wait is synonym for "delay waitInCurrentSession " > Now, the user of a Delay should be able to specify the intent. > > Is this for managing a timeout? > Is this for managing a repeating task? > ... other use cases ... > > One thing is sure, there are a tad too many Delay instances in the process list. > > Phil > > 2013/2/21 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >> Yes, I think you are right: the ambiguity is plain wrong, and even then not saving and continuing them sounds reasonable. >> >> But what about the inverse: you schedule something that should happen every hour or every day, you save/restart the image and with the new approach these would all run immediately, right ? >> >> So not only would you kill delays that are too short (reasonable), but collapse the longer ones. >> >> In terms of design: I think the different behaviors should be implemented with different objects. >> >> On 21 Feb 2013, at 12:28, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> There is one thing which is IMO an over-engineering artifact: >>> - when system goes down (image shutdown), all currently scheduled >>> delays are "saved" >>> and then when image starting up they are rescheduled again to keep >>> waiting what time is left for delay.. >>> >>> But the problem is that it does not takes into account the total time >>> an image was frozen, and the requirement is quite ambiguous: >>> >>> - if you put a process on a delay for 5 minutes, then immediately >>> save image, and then restart it 10 minutes (or 1 year) after, >>> should this delay keep waiting for 4 +x seconds which is left? Or >>> should we consider this delay as utterly expired? >>> (and as you can see, the answer is different, if we counting time >>> using real, physical time, or just image uptime). >>> >>> And why counting image uptime? Consider use cases, like connection >>> timeout.. it is all about >>> real time , right here , right now.. will it matter to get socket >>> connection timeout error when you restart some image 1 year after? >>> Please, give me a scenario, which will illustrate that we cannot live >>> without it and should count image uptime for delays, because i can't >>> find one. >>> >>> If not, then to my opinion, and to simplify all logic inside delay >>> code, i would go straight and declare following: >>> - when new image session starts, all delays, no matter for how long >>> they are scheduled to wait are considered expired (and therefore all >>> waiting processes >>> is automatically resumed). >>> >>> Because as tried to demonstrate, the meaning of delay which spans over >>> multiple image sessions is really fuzzy and i would be really >>> surprised to find a code >>> which relies on such behavior. >>> >>> This change will also can be helpful with terminating all processes >>> which were put on wait for too long (6304550344559763 milliseconds) by >>> mistake or such. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] A matter with Delays

by phil＠highoctane.be

Nice to know about this Smalltalk session. Didn't knew about that. BTW, did a debug it and it froze my image in a BlockClosure>>newProcess Phil 2013/2/21 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > On 21 February 2013 12:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> Yes, I think you are right: the ambiguity is plain wrong, and even then not saving and continuing them sounds reasonable. >> >> But what about the inverse: you schedule something that should happen every hour or every day, you save/restart the image and with the new approach these would all run immediately, right ? >> > > well, but in this case, once you will know that all delays is released > on image restart, you can always check for session change before doing > any action.. > for example: > > [ > | session | > session := Smalltalk session. > > 1 hour asDelay wait. > > "is session changed?" > session == Smalltalk session ifFalse: [ "perhaps we should abandon > the loop here and reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of > code" ]. > > self doSomething. > > ] repeat. > > > Why this "perhaps we should abandon the loop here and > reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of code".. > because any resident code (like forked process with infinite loop) is > a common source of nasty problems, > unreliable behavior and usually hard to debug (especially over > multiple sessions or when you changing the code which it should run).. > > And to my thinking, writing a proper session-aware code is a way to > go, instead of relying on ambiguous things. > >> So not only would you kill delays that are too short (reasonable), but collapse the longer ones. >> >> In terms of design: I think the different behaviors should be implemented with different objects. >> >> On 21 Feb 2013, at 12:28, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> There is one thing which is IMO an over-engineering artifact: >>> - when system goes down (image shutdown), all currently scheduled >>> delays are "saved" >>> and then when image starting up they are rescheduled again to keep >>> waiting what time is left for delay.. >>> >>> But the problem is that it does not takes into account the total time >>> an image was frozen, and the requirement is quite ambiguous: >>> >>> - if you put a process on a delay for 5 minutes, then immediately >>> save image, and then restart it 10 minutes (or 1 year) after, >>> should this delay keep waiting for 4 +x seconds which is left? Or >>> should we consider this delay as utterly expired? >>> (and as you can see, the answer is different, if we counting time >>> using real, physical time, or just image uptime). >>> >>> And why counting image uptime? Consider use cases, like connection >>> timeout.. it is all about >>> real time , right here , right now.. will it matter to get socket >>> connection timeout error when you restart some image 1 year after? >>> Please, give me a scenario, which will illustrate that we cannot live >>> without it and should count image uptime for delays, because i can't >>> find one. >>> >>> If not, then to my opinion, and to simplify all logic inside delay >>> code, i would go straight and declare following: >>> - when new image session starts, all delays, no matter for how long >>> they are scheduled to wait are considered expired (and therefore all >>> waiting processes >>> is automatically resumed). >>> >>> Because as tried to demonstrate, the meaning of delay which spans over >>> multiple image sessions is really fuzzy and i would be really >>> surprised to find a code >>> which relies on such behavior. >>> >>> This change will also can be helpful with terminating all processes >>> which were put on wait for too long (6304550344559763 milliseconds) by >>> mistake or such. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Feb. 21, 2013

Re: [Pharo-project] A matter with Delays

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 February 2013 12:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Yes, I think you are right: the ambiguity is plain wrong, and even then not saving and continuing them sounds reasonable. > > But what about the inverse: you schedule something that should happen every hour or every day, you save/restart the image and with the new approach these would all run immediately, right ? > well, but in this case, once you will know that all delays is released on image restart, you can always check for session change before doing any action.. for example: [ | session | session := Smalltalk session. 1 hour asDelay wait. "is session changed?" session == Smalltalk session ifFalse: [ "perhaps we should abandon the loop here and reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of code" ]. self doSomething. ] repeat. Why this "perhaps we should abandon the loop here and reload/reinitialize stuff in some higher layers of code".. because any resident code (like forked process with infinite loop) is a common source of nasty problems, unreliable behavior and usually hard to debug (especially over multiple sessions or when you changing the code which it should run).. And to my thinking, writing a proper session-aware code is a way to go, instead of relying on ambiguous things. > So not only would you kill delays that are too short (reasonable), but collapse the longer ones. > > In terms of design: I think the different behaviors should be implemented with different objects. > > On 21 Feb 2013, at 12:28, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> There is one thing which is IMO an over-engineering artifact: >> - when system goes down (image shutdown), all currently scheduled >> delays are "saved" >> and then when image starting up they are rescheduled again to keep >> waiting what time is left for delay.. >> >> But the problem is that it does not takes into account the total time >> an image was frozen, and the requirement is quite ambiguous: >> >> - if you put a process on a delay for 5 minutes, then immediately >> save image, and then restart it 10 minutes (or 1 year) after, >> should this delay keep waiting for 4 +x seconds which is left? Or >> should we consider this delay as utterly expired? >> (and as you can see, the answer is different, if we counting time >> using real, physical time, or just image uptime). >> >> And why counting image uptime? Consider use cases, like connection >> timeout.. it is all about >> real time , right here , right now.. will it matter to get socket >> connection timeout error when you restart some image 1 year after? >> Please, give me a scenario, which will illustrate that we cannot live >> without it and should count image uptime for delays, because i can't >> find one. >> >> If not, then to my opinion, and to simplify all logic inside delay >> code, i would go straight and declare following: >> - when new image session starts, all delays, no matter for how long >> they are scheduled to wait are considered expired (and therefore all >> waiting processes >> is automatically resumed). >> >> Because as tried to demonstrate, the meaning of delay which spans over >> multiple image sessions is really fuzzy and i would be really >> surprised to find a code >> which relies on such behavior. >> >> This change will also can be helpful with terminating all processes >> which were put on wait for too long (6304550344559763 milliseconds) by >> mistake or such. >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Feb. 21, 2013