One thing I do not see mentioned, and feel could use some attention, is thread safety. (aka other threads altering the graph you are serializing)
The classic answer would of course be "always run FUEL at highest priority", but if we ever want to move to true multi-core, that's not enough.
What would be neat is protecting all mutation of objects in the graph with a Mutex/Monitor whose critical section covers the analysis and serialization, i.e. blocking all other processes that wants to mutate objects in the graph untill serialization is complete.
Aside from the behaviour when a marked object is encountered, the process is the same as for immutability, as discussed here:
http://forum.world.st/immutability-and-become-Was-Re-squeak-dev-immutability-td1597511.html
You could do this image-side as part of the analyze phase, as Eliot's post suggests,
but it's not entirely safe when:
A child -> B
B parent -> A
1 . Process1 protects A with Mutex
2. Process2 calls method on B which does:
� a) B parent: C
� b) (B's tmpRef to A) child: somethingElse *Wait for Mutex*
3. Process 1 makes B, C immutable, serializes B with C as parent.
4. Process2 changes A child.
It could of course be argued that is a programming/logic error to update B parent ref before child ref in A, (you'd actually have to do extra work to get that order), still it's a hard one to debug if it does happen.
(Note to the thread: Following the same logic, I would also say it should be considered an error to keep a mutable cache as part of an immutable object :) )
In fact, you *could* implement it with immutability, injecting handler contexts with behaviour as described above into existing/new processes for any resulting immutability errors.