Tim's New Compiled Method format

>    On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Matthew Fulmer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      While talking to Craig about spoon, I learned that Tim made a
>      new Compiled Method format using normal objects, and (I think) a
>      VM that ran it. I tried searching for it and came up with:
>
>      New Compiled Method Format and 3.0 Image
>         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/750
>      VI4
>         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2119
>      Version 4
>         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3716
>
>      I have been discussing what would go into Squeak 4 since we now
>      need to create such a system, due to the urgency of the license
>      situation, and I am now leaning toward Spoon rather than
>      KernelImage as a basis for Squeak4, after learning the magnitude
>      of the relicense effort on Monday.
>
>    Tell us about the magnitude of this relicense effort... is it
>    unachievable? Would we spend less time on the relicensing if we "just did
>    it" using vanilla 3.10, or would it be less time in total to include this
>    refactoring first and then do the relicensing?

>
>    Personally, I will eventually (1-2 years maybe?) need a refactored and
>    tidied up CompiledMethod format for my own project, so I have a vested
>    interest in this.
>
>    Gulik.
>
>    --
>    http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
>    http://gulik.pbwiki.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Fulmer
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:45AM +1300, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
> >    On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Matthew Fulmer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >      While talking to Craig about spoon, I learned that Tim made a
> >      new Compiled Method format using normal objects, and (I think) a
> >      VM that ran it. I tried searching for it and came up with:
> >
> >      New Compiled Method Format and 3.0 Image
> >         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/750
> >      VI4
> >         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2119
> >      Version 4
> >         http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3716
> >
> >      I have been discussing what would go into Squeak 4 since we now
> >      need to create such a system, due to the urgency of the license
> >      situation, and I am now leaning toward Spoon rather than
> >      KernelImage as a basis for Squeak4, after learning the magnitude
> >      of the relicense effort on Monday.
> >
> >    Tell us about the magnitude of this relicense effort... is it
> >    unachievable? Would we spend less time on the relicensing if we "just
> did
> >    it" using vanilla 3.10, or would it be less time in total to include
> this
> >    refactoring first and then do the relicensing?
>
> Currently, August 2008 is looking like a reasonable release
> time. For details, see
> http://installer.pbwiki.org/LicenseAuditing
>
> We have 2 months or so in which no relicensing work can happen
> (in Plan B), and that time could be spent getting a VM bug-fix
> into the image.
>
> >
> >    Personally, I will eventually (1-2 years maybe?) need a refactored
> and
> >    tidied up CompiledMethod format for my own project, so I have a
> vested
> >    interest in this.
> >
> >    Gulik.
> >
> >    --
> >    http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
> >    http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
>
>
> --
> Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/

>  
> Can we get a clear statement about what a rewrite process would look like?
>
> Can the new author read the old method?  Can someone else produce a
> requirements document that specifies what the method needs to do?  Can
> someone write tests from the old method that need to pass with the new
> method?
>
> I still do not understand what we are allowed to do in order to reverse
> engineer an unclean method.

> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:00:48AM -0400, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> >  
> > Can we get a clear statement about what a rewrite process would look like?
> >
> > Can the new author read the old method?  Can someone else produce a
> > requirements document that specifies what the method needs to do?  Can
> > someone write tests from the old method that need to pass with the new
> > method?
> >
> > I still do not understand what we are allowed to do in order to reverse
> > engineer an unclean method.
>
> A draft of "the rules" is at
> http://installer.pbwiki.org/SqueakRelicenseParty
>
> This has not yet been reviewed. Also, a rewrite effort will not
> happen until July if we indeed go with spoon.
>
> If you could, please wait until I write down the results of
> meeting four (which was 3 days ago, on Monday). I'm compiling a
> web site with all this stuff, but I've been pretty busy this
> week. I'll announce on squeak-dev when it's done.
>