May 2011 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

[COTDC] 60 - DirectoryURI

by laurent laffont

Today: DirectoryURI Comment Of The Day Contest - One Day One Comment Rules: #1: Each day a not commented class is elected. Each day the best comment will be integrated with name of the author(s). #2: If you cannot comment it, deprecate it. Results: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/CommentOfTheDayContest Laurent

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] WebClient for 1.2.2?

by Andy Burnett

Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > Money would help, since you keep on asking, how much would it be worth to > you ? > Sven, that's a great question. We don't use Pharo for delivery (yet), but I am really drawn to it as a 'sketching' tool for my ideas. Increasingly, I find I am hampered by not having SSL, and so I have to turn to Python. Not the end of the world, but not as good as Pharo. I see that Miguel has offered 100 Euros, and I will happily offer 500 Euros to help push things along. What I really need to know though, is what would it cost to get this done - even a rough estimate. Cheers Andy -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/WebClient-for-1-2-2-tp3485946p3499050.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] WebClient for 1.2.2?

by Miguel CobÃ¡

I can donate myself 100 Euro to begin the bounty! El jue, 05-05-2011 a las 13:36 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse escribiÃ³: > >> On May 4, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Andy Burnett wrote: > >> > >> > Out of curiosity, what will it take to get SSL working? Is it a difficult > >> > technical problem, or is it just a question of time/money? > >> > >> > >> I would say time/money because writing primitives to openssl libraries should be possible. > >> and we would love somebody to start building a good plugin. > > > > Do you gave a guesstimate on how much money would be needed? Also, do we have someone(s) who might be willing to do the project? > > I suggest that we use this project to make a call for a bounty. > I'm convinced that ESUG could put some money on the table but it would be good to know if some > companies are interested to join. > > Stef -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] WebClient for 1.2.2?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> Hi, > > VA Smalltalk from Instantiations currently uses an old version of openssl for https support. I think it is on their product roadmap to modernize this. > > Perhaps we can ask them to join forces. > > Jan. Yes this would be a good idea. Stef

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] Object>>copyTwoLevel

by Johan Fabry

OK thanks Igor and Mariano. We'll consider it, send the paper when it is finished ;-) On 05 May 2011, at 04:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Ahhh and the difference with MethodWrappers (at least with the implementation that is in the Pharo image) > > - MethodWrapper intercepts both things: 1) messages sent to the object (as if it were a compiled method), and 2) method execution > MyClass at: #foo put: MyMethodWrapper. > (MyClass methodAt: #foo) literals. --->> 1) > MyClass new foo ---->> 2) > > 1) is done using #dnu and 2) using #run:with:in: > > the problem is that the method wrapper is a subclass from Object, so there are 375 methods (Object methodDict size) that will be understood by the proxy itself instead of trapping the message. Ok, you can subclass from ProtoObject, that would be better (ProtoObject methodDict size -> 38 ). But still, even subclassing from nil, it is not stratified. > > (MyClass methodAt: #foo) blahBlah will try to trap the message instead of raise a MNU. > > I don't know what do you need for your case, if both things 1) and 2). If it is only 2) then there is few advantages with our implemetnation. If you need both, then yes, I would take a look. > > cheers > > mariano > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 May 2011 01:59, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > > > > On 04 May 2011, at 17:30, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > > > >> > >> mariano got a really nice proxy model based on the stratified proxy of igor (which is in 1.3). > > > > > > Question: could this be used for PHANtom? We are now using Methodwrappers but there are some issues (fixed in PHANtom). Mariano, Igor, can you explain the advantages of your model wrt methodwrappers? > > > > Sorry i'm not familiar with methodwrappers. > > The basic model is separation of proxy and handler. Proxy acts only as > a message trap, > while handler is actually responsible for handling messages trapped by proxy. > > Mariano builds on top of that, because he wants to replace classes > and/or methods with proxies, > and this requires a special handling (class proxy should obey > VM-specific Behavior format, > and method proxy should implement #run:in:as: when installed in method > dictionary ). > > So, i guess that proxies which representing compiled methods could act > similar to method wrappers. > But of course you still have to implement all intall/deinstall > management et al.. > > The only advantage of new proxies comparing to usual proxies based on > #DNU pattern that > they guarantee a clear separation between meta-levels, i.e. even if > you send #doesNotUnderstand: > message to a proxy, this message will be trapped and handled by > handler as any other. > > > > Yes, and the cool thing is that proxies can intercept ALL messages, not only those that are not understood. Hence, you don't need to subclass from ProtoObject or nil. > In addition (I think, I didn't measure) that they are faster because they don't need to the method lookup until getting to the dnu..but I am not sure about this last one. > > Another problem with the DNU is what Igor say, you are mixing both things: error handling and message trapping. So...when a proxy receives DNU, how do you know if it was a real dnu or because it needs to trap the message? > > Implementing method wrappers on top of such proxies is a matter of 5 minutes as much as I can see. In fact, in the paper I "implement" method wrappers as an example. > > You can take a look by > > Gofer new > squeaksource: 'Marea'; > package: 'GhostProxies'; > package: 'GhostProxiesTests'; > load. > > But remember it is just a prototype ;) > > The paper is almost finish... > > cheers > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- Johan Fabry jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] Object>>copyTwoLevel

by Panu Suominen

2011/5/5 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > why not putting the method in your domain object root? When doing things like this domain object could return objects out side of the domain object hierarchy and they should be copied. Most notably collections. Also I think that if copyTwoLevel it is too spesific for object it is too spesific for domain objects. That does not matter now because the approach was flawed... Original idea was to copy only two levels to avoid too much work and only do more copying when necessary. Two levels where copied because this would handle situations where objects internal state is changed. More levels would get copied when the proxied object would return new values. Thus the proxy had following code. doesNotUnderstand: aMessage | result | accumulator add: aMessage -> originalObject. result := aMessage sendTo: copyObject. ^ (result isLiteral) ifTrue: [ result ] ifFalse: [ transaction proxyFor: result ] And copyObject is initialized using originalObject copyTwoLevel. However this just is not a proper solution because there might be calls that dive deeply in the structure and alter objects that have not been copied yet (they are lower than second level from object the message is send). But deep copy alone won't handle this either. After deep copying it is hard to say which objects where changed and which were not. -- Panu

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] WebClient for 1.2.2?

by Jan van de Sandt

Hi, VA Smalltalk from Instantiations currently uses an old version of openssl for https support. I think it is on their product roadmap to modernize this. Perhaps we can ask them to join forces. Jan. On May 5, 2011 1:37 PM, "StÃ©phane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> On May 4, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Andy Burnett wrote: >>> >>> > Out of curiosity, what will it take to get SSL working? Is it a difficult >>> > technical problem, or is it just a question of time/money? >>> >>> >>> I would say time/money because writing primitives to openssl libraries should be possible. >>> and we would love somebody to start building a good plugin. >> >> Do you gave a guesstimate on how much money would be needed? Also, do we have someone(s) who might be willing to do the project? > > I suggest that we use this project to make a call for a bounty. > I'm convinced that ESUG could put some money on the table but it would be good to know if some > companies are interested to join. > > Stef

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] Object>>copyTwoLevel

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On May 5, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Panu Suominen wrote: > 2011/5/5 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: >> why copy is not enough for you? >> and you redefine postCopy to copy the instance variables? > > Because it would involve manual labour for any object that is going to > be used in business logic. This would create artificial requirement > that is easily forgotten. However first try-out of this approach used > postCopy in domain objects. > > I thought that copyTwoLevel is going to be deprecated because it is > too specific. However I am not sure whether this is actually true. It > depends how often copying objects is necessary. > The deprecation is not a problem. I can easily just create utility > class that copies objects like copyTwoLevel. why not putting the method in your domain object root? > > -- > Panu >

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] WebClient for 1.2.2?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> On May 4, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Andy Burnett wrote: >> >> > Out of curiosity, what will it take to get SSL working? Is it a difficult >> > technical problem, or is it just a question of time/money? >> >> >> I would say time/money because writing primitives to openssl libraries should be possible. >> and we would love somebody to start building a good plugin. > > Do you gave a guesstimate on how much money would be needed? Also, do we have someone(s) who might be willing to do the project? I suggest that we use this project to make a call for a bounty. I'm convinced that ESUG could put some money on the table but it would be good to know if some companies are interested to join. Stef

May 5, 2011

Re: [Pharo-users] Object>>copyTwoLevel

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Ahhh and the difference with MethodWrappers (at least with the implementation that is in the Pharo image) - MethodWrapper intercepts both things: 1) messages sent to the object (as if it were a compiled method), and 2) method execution MyClass at: #foo put: MyMethodWrapper. (MyClass methodAt: #foo) literals. --->> 1) MyClass new foo ---->> 2) 1) is done using #dnu and 2) using #run:with:in: the problem is that the method wrapper is a subclass from Object, so there are 375 methods (Object methodDict size) that will be understood by the proxy itself instead of trapping the message. Ok, you can subclass from ProtoObject, that would be better (ProtoObject methodDict size -> 38 ). But still, even subclassing from nil, it is not stratified. (MyClass methodAt: #foo) blahBlah will try to trap the message instead of raise a MNU. I don't know what do you need for your case, if both things 1) and 2). If it is only 2) then there is few advantages with our implemetnation. If you need both, then yes, I would take a look. cheers mariano On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5 May 2011 01:59, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: >> > >> > On 04 May 2011, at 17:30, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> mariano got a really nice proxy model based on the stratified proxy of >> igor (which is in 1.3). >> > >> > >> > Question: could this be used for PHANtom? We are now using >> Methodwrappers but there are some issues (fixed in PHANtom). Mariano, Igor, >> can you explain the advantages of your model wrt methodwrappers? >> > >> >> Sorry i'm not familiar with methodwrappers. >> >> The basic model is separation of proxy and handler. Proxy acts only as >> a message trap, >> while handler is actually responsible for handling messages trapped by >> proxy. >> >> Mariano builds on top of that, because he wants to replace classes >> and/or methods with proxies, >> and this requires a special handling (class proxy should obey >> VM-specific Behavior format, >> and method proxy should implement #run:in:as: when installed in method >> dictionary ). >> >> So, i guess that proxies which representing compiled methods could act >> similar to method wrappers. >> But of course you still have to implement all intall/deinstall >> management et al.. >> >> The only advantage of new proxies comparing to usual proxies based on >> #DNU pattern that >> they guarantee a clear separation between meta-levels, i.e. even if >> you send #doesNotUnderstand: >> message to a proxy, this message will be trapped and handled by >> handler as any other. >> >> > > Yes, and the cool thing is that proxies can intercept ALL messages, not > only those that are not understood. Hence, you don't need to subclass from > ProtoObject or nil. > In addition (I think, I didn't measure) that they are faster because they > don't need to the method lookup until getting to the dnu..but I am not sure > about this last one. > > Another problem with the DNU is what Igor say, you are mixing both things: > error handling and message trapping. So...when a proxy receives DNU, how do > you know if it was a real dnu or because it needs to trap the message? > > Implementing method wrappers on top of such proxies is a matter of 5 > minutes as much as I can see. In fact, in the paper I "implement" method > wrappers as an example. > > You can take a look by > > Gofer new > squeaksource: 'Marea'; > package: 'GhostProxies'; > package: 'GhostProxiesTests'; > load. > > But remember it is just a prototype ;) > > The paper is almost finish... > > cheers > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

May 5, 2011