I fail to see what atomic means in this context, it's too broad idea.
To me atomic would be: compile all in a certain sequence, then install all at once atomically.

And in this case, there is still a problem, because it would resolve installation order, not compilation order...

The idea of compiling class side first sounds good to me.
It's not atomic, but might just work.

2013/11/21 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>

On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:55, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:

On 21 November 2013 12:30, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:

On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:34, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2013, at 16:45, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can do it per class-hierarchy��� you can implement on the class side a method to parametrize the compiler:
>>>
>>> compiler
>>> �� �� ^super compiler options: #(- optionInlineTimesRepeat)
>>
>> Thanks, Marcus, that works just great.
>
> Marcus,
>
> Are we sure this option mechanism works when loading code through Monticello ?
>

No��� we should make sure that MC loads the method first. I think it does that for #compilerClass
already (but not sure).

which is still doesn't eliminates problem completely, because nothing prevents me from having:

compilerClass

�� ^ self otherMethod

and now in order to work,�� MC have to know somehow that #otherMethod should also be loaded first.

But i think some prioritization guarantees would be really useful.

At least i think we can easily prioritize class-side compilation over instance side.

Like that, when you compiling any of instance-side method, you know that class side is already there (and can be used
as such in different kinds of hooks).

��

yes, we need atomic code loading.

Marcus