Hello,
here a situation, with which we can deal in more safer manner:
Suppose you have a weak registry, populated by different objects and
their executors.
Now, when some of them died, a weak registry performs finalization.
The potential danger is , that if there's an error triggered by some
ex
On 11 October 2010 14:40, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here a situation, with which we can deal in more safer manner:
>
> Suppose you have a weak registry, populated by different objects and
> their executors.
>
> Now, when some of them died, a weak registry performs finalization.
>
> The pot
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
here a situation, with which we can deal in more safer manner:
Suppose you have a weak registry, populated by different objects and
their executors.
Now, when some of them died, a weak registry performs finalization.
The potential danger is ,
al-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here a situation, with which we can deal in more safer manner:
>
> Suppose you have a weak registry, populated by diff
opers list
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
here a situation, with which we can deal in more safer manner:
Suppose you have a weak registry, populated by different objects and
their executors.
Now,
ia.fr
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[le...@elte.hu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:24 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
On 11 October 2010 17:24, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> Levente,
>>
>> A similar discussion arose around Dolphin's event (#trigger*) mechanism.
>> My recollection is that it was not fully addressed due to performance
>> concerns. Forking and error hand
ia.fr
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[le...@elte.hu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:24 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 11 October 2010 17:24, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Levente,
A similar discussion arose around Dolphin's event (#trigger*) mechanism.
My recollection is that it was not fully addressed due to performance
conc
ect: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On 11 October 2010 17:24, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> Levente,
>>
>> A similar discussion arose around Dolphin's event (#trigger*) mechanism.
>>
On 11 October 2010 17:34, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Levente,
>
> Ok, but just because the system saves us at the last instant does not mean
> that we should be going out of our way to multiply free external resources.
> Files are well known to the vm; other things (GSL vectors/matrices comes to
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[le...@elte.hu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
Argh
>>>
>
> ObjectFinalizer>>finalize
> "Finalize the resource associated with the receiver. This message
> should only be sent during the finalization process. There is NO
> garantuee that the resource associated with the receiver hasn't been
> free'd before so take care that you don
On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:10 13PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
> I am far more worried about having multiple executors per object (when did
> p=malloc();free(p);free(p);free(p) become good style?) than I am about
> getting the finalizer process itself completely robust at this point.
>
> Bill
I fa
On 11 October 2010 18:23, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:10 13PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>>
>> I am far more worried about having multiple executors per object (when did
>> p=malloc();free(p);free(p);free(p) become good style?) than I am about
>> getting the finalizer proces
, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:10 13PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
> I am far more worried about having multiple executors per object (when did
> p=malloc();free(p);free(
Meanwhile, i'll try to implement two test cases for WeakRegistryTest.
One, should cover following:
coll := OrderedCollection new.
obj := Object new.
wrapper := WeakArray with: obj.
coll add: wrapper.
obj toFinalizeSend: #remove: to: coll with: wrapper.
obj toFinalizeSend: #remove: to: coll with:
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The general-purpose Squeak developers
list
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
Meanwhile, i'll try to implement two test cases for WeakRegistryTest.
One, s
...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Henrik Johansen
[henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:10 13PM
oject@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Ok, what valid use of multiple executors have I missed?
I described it earlier how the AXAnnouncements project uses this feature.
Lev
t-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko
> [siguc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:14 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The general-purpose Squeak
> developers list
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error hand
boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko
> [siguc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:14 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The general-purpose Squeak
> developers list
> Subject:
:02 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
>
> On 11 October 2010 19:28, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>> Sig,
>>
>> The Dolphin approach is to restart any of the finalizer, main, timer, idler
ubject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On 11 October 2010 20:04, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>
> Understood, but are they all that different? The ones that were served ahead
> of the error should stay that way (proper recording of same is what ne
On 11 October 2010 21:07, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>
> As a friend here: when did I say I'd remove all? Remove and process one at a
> time. I will admit to having a bias toward doing this with a single executor
> per object, but even if multiples turn out to have value (need to hunt down
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 11 October 2010 21:07, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Sig,
As a friend here: when did I say I'd remove all? Remove and process one at a
time. I will admit to having a bias toward doing this with a single executor
per object, but even if multiples turn
October 11, 2010 2:36 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On 11 October 2010 21:07, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>
> As a friend here: when did I say I'd remove all? Remove and process one at a
> ti
On 11 October 2010 22:49, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>
> The most important words in there are "critical section." Carry on :)
>
Oh, please. This is not too hard to code.
My mind rolling around following choice(s) (there may be others i don't see).
What would be a proper way to handle erro
: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
[pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko
[siguc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The general-purpose Squeak developers
list
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Anoth
>
>
> From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko
> [siguc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The
tasenko
[siguc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 6:35 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Another finalization concern: error handling
On 12 October 2010 00:32, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>
> How hard it is or isn't is not nearly as impo
Den 11. okt. 2010 kl. 22:17 skrev Igor Stasenko :
>
> Also, i used #ensure: and #ifCurtailed: but i tend to forget where
> they are applicable and how.
> So, little help in this regard will be wellcome.
Ensure: block always execute. IfCurtailed blocks only run if an error is
encountered, or th
On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:17 18PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 11 October 2010 22:49, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>> Sig,
>>
>> The most important words in there are "critical section." Carry on :)
>>
>
> Oh, please. This is not too hard to code.
>
> My mind rolling around following choice(s) (ther
On 12 October 2010 14:25, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:17 18PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 11 October 2010 22:49, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>> Sig,
>>>
>>> The most important words in there are "critical section." Carry on :)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, please. This is not too hard to co
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:00 42PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 12 October 2010 14:25, Henrik Johansen
> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:17 18PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 October 2010 22:49, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Sig,
The most important words in there are "critical se
On 12 October 2010 15:33, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:00 42PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 12 October 2010 14:25, Henrik Johansen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:17 18PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
On 11 October 2010 22:49, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Sig,
>>
36 matches
Mail list logo
