Quantcast

Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

Stefan Marr-4
Hi:

I was wondering what the standard approach is to package rather invasive changes to core classes.


Currently, I have everything in extension methods that override the existing methods in my own package.
However, the monticello package is not actually loadable. So, I cannot just load my stuff into a new image via monticello. For instance, I modify #basicNew/#basicNew:, the Parser, the Encoder classes, etc.

With my changes, these things depend on my own classes being properly initialized in the image.

What is the best way to get that into a loadable/bootstrapable  state?

Do I need to split up all the stuff into different packages according to dependencies and then make sure that I can load those different packages in a well defined order?

Or is there anything to tell Monticello to be smarter about loading the stuff?

Thanks
Stefan

--
Stefan Marr
Software Languages Lab
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
Phone: +32 2 629 2974
Fax:   +32 2 629 3525



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

Stéphane Ducasse
if you look in the scripttloatder you can tell the MC that it should apply a list of package one after the other and not (by default collect all the classes and apply all the change together).

Now another smart move is to think (if the license allows it) how you can push the hooks that you need to the community like that you are more customization and less override.
Now part two, I hope that we will get a bootstrap working one of these days but for that we need to get time.

Stef

On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:

> Hi:
>
> I was wondering what the standard approach is to package rather invasive changes to core classes.
>
>
> Currently, I have everything in extension methods that override the existing methods in my own package.
> However, the monticello package is not actually loadable. So, I cannot just load my stuff into a new image via monticello. For instance, I modify #basicNew/#basicNew:, the Parser, the Encoder classes, etc.
>
> With my changes, these things depend on my own classes being properly initialized in the image.
>
> What is the best way to get that into a loadable/bootstrapable  state?
>
> Do I need to split up all the stuff into different packages according to dependencies and then make sure that I can load those different packages in a well defined order?
>
> Or is there anything to tell Monticello to be smarter about loading the stuff?
>
> Thanks
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> Software Languages Lab
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
> Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
> http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
> Phone: +32 2 629 2974
> Fax:   +32 2 629 3525
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

Lukas Renggli
For an example, have a look at the package Helvetia-Loader in http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/helvetia. It verifies the expected sytem, patches Monticello, bootstraps the quasiquoting, replaces the compiler and parser infrastructure in multiple steps, ...

Lukas

On Monday, 7 November 2011, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> if you look in the scripttloatder you can tell the MC that it should apply a list of package one after the other and not (by default collect all the classes and apply all the change together).
>
> Now another smart move is to think (if the license allows it) how you can push the hooks that you need to the community like that you are more customization and less override.
> Now part two, I hope that we will get a bootstrap working one of these days but for that we need to get time.
>
> Stef
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:
>
>> Hi:
>>
>> I was wondering what the standard approach is to package rather invasive changes to core classes.
>>
>>
>> Currently, I have everything in extension methods that override the existing methods in my own package.
>> However, the monticello package is not actually loadable. So, I cannot just load my stuff into a new image via monticello. For instance, I modify #basicNew/#basicNew:, the Parser, the Encoder classes, etc.
>>
>> With my changes, these things depend on my own classes being properly initialized in the image.
>>
>> What is the best way to get that into a loadable/bootstrapable  state?
>>
>> Do I need to split up all the stuff into different packages according to dependencies and then make sure that I can load those different packages in a well defined order?
>>
>> Or is there anything to tell Monticello to be smarter about loading the stuff?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stefan
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Marr
>> Software Languages Lab
>> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
>> Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
>> http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
>> Phone: +32 2 629 2974
>> Fax:   +32 2 629 3525
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

Stefan Marr-4
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Hi:

On 07 Nov 2011, at 23:38, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> if you look in the scripttloatder you can tell the MC that it should apply a list of package one after the other and not (by default collect all the classes and apply all the change together).

Hm, I currently have only one Monticello package. I don't put subpackages currently into different *mcz, but I guess that is the way to go.



Thanks Lukas, but that looks like breaking a fly on the wheel. Don't need that kind of complexity just yet.


> Now another smart move is to think (if the license allows it) how you can push the hooks that you need to the community like that you are more customization and less override.
License: MIT...
But, 50% of the stuff is to specific, I think.


The following would be a candidate for inclusion:

-----
!Parser class methodsFor: '*Omni-Compiler-Kernel' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 21:40'!
encoderClassFor: aCompiledMethod
        ^ aCompiledMethod isBlueBookCompiled
                ifTrue:  [EncoderForV3]
                ifFalse: [EncoderForV3PlusClosures]! !

!CompiledMethod methodsFor: '*Omni-Compiler-Kernel' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 15:55'!
methodNode
        "Return the parse tree that represents self"
        | aClass source |
        aClass := self methodClass.
        source := self
                        getSourceFor: (self selector ifNil: [self defaultSelector])
                        in: aClass.
        ^(aClass parserClass new
                encoderClass: (aClass parserClass encoderClassFor: self);
                parse: source class: aClass)
                        sourceText: source;
                        yourself! !
-----

But for instance the following and similar changes aren't generally useful, and probably just an artifact of me being too lazy to do it right:

!InstanceVariableNode methodsFor: '*Omni-code generation' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 14:20'!
emitCodeForValue: stack encoder: encoder
        stack push: 1.
        encoder adjustParseStackForPushInstVar: stack.
        ^encoder genPushInstVar: index! !

!BytecodeEncoder methodsFor: '*Omni-bytecode generation' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 14:20'!
adjustParseStackForPushInstVar: parseStack
        ^ parseStack! !


Best regards
Stefan


--
Stefan Marr
Software Languages Lab
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
Phone: +32 2 629 2974
Fax:   +32 2 629 3525


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Best practices for overrides/extension methods with Monticello and correct packaging?

Stéphane Ducasse
if you want that markus get a look at them open a bug entry and write one sentence of description and put cs.

STef

On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Stefan Marr wrote:

> Hi:
>
> On 07 Nov 2011, at 23:38, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> if you look in the scripttloatder you can tell the MC that it should apply a list of package one after the other and not (by default collect all the classes and apply all the change together).
>
> Hm, I currently have only one Monticello package. I don't put subpackages currently into different *mcz, but I guess that is the way to go.
>
>
>
> Thanks Lukas, but that looks like breaking a fly on the wheel. Don't need that kind of complexity just yet.
>
>
>> Now another smart move is to think (if the license allows it) how you can push the hooks that you need to the community like that you are more customization and less override.
> License: MIT...
> But, 50% of the stuff is to specific, I think.
>
>
> The following would be a candidate for inclusion:
>
> -----
> !Parser class methodsFor: '*Omni-Compiler-Kernel' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 21:40'!
> encoderClassFor: aCompiledMethod
> ^ aCompiledMethod isBlueBookCompiled
> ifTrue:  [EncoderForV3]
> ifFalse: [EncoderForV3PlusClosures]! !
>
> !CompiledMethod methodsFor: '*Omni-Compiler-Kernel' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 15:55'!
> methodNode
> "Return the parse tree that represents self"
> | aClass source |
> aClass := self methodClass.
> source := self
> getSourceFor: (self selector ifNil: [self defaultSelector])
> in: aClass.
> ^(aClass parserClass new
> encoderClass: (aClass parserClass encoderClassFor: self);
> parse: source class: aClass)
> sourceText: source;
> yourself! !
> -----
>
> But for instance the following and similar changes aren't generally useful, and probably just an artifact of me being too lazy to do it right:
>
> !InstanceVariableNode methodsFor: '*Omni-code generation' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 14:20'!
> emitCodeForValue: stack encoder: encoder
> stack push: 1.
> encoder adjustParseStackForPushInstVar: stack.
> ^encoder genPushInstVar: index! !
>
> !BytecodeEncoder methodsFor: '*Omni-bytecode generation' stamp: 'StefanMarr 11/3/2011 14:20'!
> adjustParseStackForPushInstVar: parseStack
> ^ parseStack! !
>
>
> Best regards
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> Stefan Marr
> Software Languages Lab
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
> Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
> http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
> Phone: +32 2 629 2974
> Fax:   +32 2 629 3525
>
>


Loading...