On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ben. > > 2016-07-18 14:46 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com>: >> >> Cool stuff Dennis. Does it utilise the remote image's DebuggerUI, or >> DebuggerSession directly? i.e. Is the aim to remotely debug a >> headless/UI-less image? This could open up some great possibilities >> running a minimal image on embedded hardware. > > > Local debugger is opened on remote process. No UI needed to work with remote > image. > Also there is command line option to start image with running server: > > ./pharo PharoWithServer.image debuggerServer --port=40423 > > With Marcus we played with beaglebon device. It works fine like in my demo.
I've been meaning to get a BBB. I looks like bit better platform for an industrial controller / robotics than the Rpi - in particular its Programming Realtime Unit. Knowing someone else has one maybe I'll get one now. In the back of my mind I've been considering whether its PRU could be modelled as a CPU target for Slang , so Slang could be re-purposed from just compiling VM, to compiling embedded programs for the PRU, developed from within Pharo and loaded on the fly into the PRU. >> >> When I read "Async evaluation ... does not wait for a result" I wonder >> if there a particular need for the fork is used here?... >> debugger evaluateAsync: [ [1/0] fork ]. >> > > Yes, it looks strange. Now all remote requests are executed such way that > errors will be returned as SeamlessRemoteException and server signaller > process will die. So instead of debugger with failed remote expression you > will see debugger with local process which performed remote message send > (but in case of async evaluation no result will returned to client and error > will be just ignored). To escape such "exception handler" fork is needed. > Fork will lead to unhanded error which will ask registered remote debugger > to debug it. Could you not just fork at the remote side? Perhaps the invocation would be #evaluateFork: > It was simplest strategy for error handling and in future it is probably > possible to implement real smalltalk semantics over distributed errors. > >> >> >> An interesting proof demonstration would be when setting up the server >> image do... >> Smalltalk at: #whoami put: #IAmTheServer >> >> then in the client do... >> debugger evaluate: [ Smalltalk at: #whoami ] > > > It works exactly like you want. Evaluation scripts transfer block to remote > side by value. And for blocks "by value" means transfer all literals as > "well known objects" (which are known on remote side). If globals not exist > on remote side then error will be returned. Some literals could be > transferred by reference. For example workspace variables. > >> >> >> although maybe its hard to bind to the remote Smalltalk rather than >> the local one? >> What is the tradeoff of the #evaluate: parameter being a string rather >> than a block? > > > In this case you can't execute scripts which reference local objects like > self, temps or workspace variables. Also it would be impossible to implement > non local return with regular semantics. > >> >> Without having looked at the Seamless mechanism, intuitively there >> would seem some benefit having the remote system compile the string to >> bind to the remote classes. > > > There is scenario which needs to be covered: debugging images which has no > compiler. I probably will work on it at some point. > >> >> Another interesting demo might be remotely evaluating... >> Object inform: 'Test' >> and the notification showing up on the remote (if indeed that is the >> desired behaviour) > > Yes, it works: https://youtu.be/Aop7KOGOFN0 HAharrrgh!! Thats *very* cool indeed !! cheers -ben
