On 21 January 2011 19:06, Eliot Miranda <
eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Igor Stasenko <
siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 January 2011 11:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <
sven@beta9.be> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 21 Jan 2011, at 11:19, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> >
>> >>> What is interesting (and we might make that an option) is that the 'no
>> >>> display' error results in the image being saved 'headfull' so that you can
>> >>> start it up using a display to debug it (suspended process/debugger).
>> >>
>> >> That could be done.. but not as userful as simply report an error.
>> >> Usually we (developers) knowing what we want to do,
>> >> and what i don't want to see in my headless image is any attempts to
>> >> access display/ui.
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's why I said it would better be an option. The first thing to
>> > do is simply report the error (and quit, or maybe that should be an option
>> > too). But many people playing with headless images (myself included) have
>> > had blocking/locked up images: having a log would be great, but adding this
>> > option to debug the cause further would be great.
>> >
>>
>> this is next step..
>>
>> I think this could be set by preference system
>> on error:
>> �- print error to log and quit
>> �- print error to log and do save & quit
>> �- print error to log and do save new version & quit
>>
>> In future , by adding support from VM side we could also have:
>> �- switch to interactive(headfull) mode, by creating an OS window
>> opening debugger , showing dialog(s) etc etc
>
> The VW headful/headless switch requires _no_ additional VM support at all.
> �All one needs is stdio support (which we have) and everything else can be
> done in Smalltalk.
>