we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless

>
> Bill
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> the one running the gui
>
> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run, because
> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because of
> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too) about
> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
> possible.
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>
>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Levente,
>>>>
>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told (#terminate) to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by design.  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>
>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't want
>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until it's
>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just signal the
>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>
>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which is not open."
>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This process will stop the connection attempt."
>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>
>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it. It
>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin, they
>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>
>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from the fact that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it should have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the remedy for working while blocking operations happen in the background is threading, and most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>
>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guille
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or JavaScript,
>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring additional
>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent would be cool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some of
>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color, border
>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic set of
>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only problem is
>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>
> Bill
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:51 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> Levente,
>>
>> Something has to block while a connection attempt is pending, and not just until some arbitrary time limit.  The client code is bad enough; the servers are horrible.
>
> If the UI Process is using the Socket and it's using a blocking connection
> method, then - no surprise - it will be blocked. This won't affect other
> processes.
>
> If you were right, the following would block the UI Process for 100
> seconds, but it doesn't block it at all, just try it:
>
> Transcript open.
> [ 10 timesRepeat: [
>        | s |
>        [
>                s := Socket new.
>                s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>                s
>                        waitForConnectionFor: 10
>                        ifTimedOut: [ Transcript show: 'Couldn''t connect.'; cr ].
>                s isConnected ifTrue: [
>                        Transcript show: 'Connected.'; cr. ].
>                s close ] ensure: [
>                        s ifNotNil: [ s destroy ] ] ] ] fork.
>
>
> What do you mean by "servers"? ConnectionQueue?
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> the one running the gui
>>
>> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run, because
>> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because of
>> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too) about
>> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
>> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
>> possible.
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>>
>>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>
>>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told (#terminate) to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by design.  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't want
>>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until it's
>>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just signal the
>>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>>
>>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which is not open."
>>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This process will stop the connection attempt."
>>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>>
>>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it. It
>>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin, they
>>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from the fact that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it should have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the remedy for working while blocking operations happen in the background is threading, and most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Levente
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or JavaScript,
>>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring additional
>>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent would be cool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some of
>>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color, border
>>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic set of
>>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only problem is
>>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>
> Bill
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:51 PM
> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> Levente,
>>
>> Something has to block while a connection attempt is pending, and not just until some arbitrary time limit.  The client code is bad enough; the servers are horrible.
>
> If the UI Process is using the Socket and it's using a blocking connection
> method, then - no surprise - it will be blocked. This won't affect other
> processes.
>
> If you were right, the following would block the UI Process for 100
> seconds, but it doesn't block it at all, just try it:
>
> Transcript open.
> [ 10 timesRepeat: [
>        | s |
>        [
>                s := Socket new.
>                s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>                s
>                        waitForConnectionFor: 10
>                        ifTimedOut: [ Transcript show: 'Couldn''t connect.'; cr ].
>                s isConnected ifTrue: [
>                        Transcript show: 'Connected.'; cr. ].
>                s close ] ensure: [
>                        s ifNotNil: [ s destroy ] ] ] ] fork.
>
>
> What do you mean by "servers"? ConnectionQueue?
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> the one running the gui
>>
>> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run, because
>> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because of
>> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too) about
>> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
>> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
>> possible.
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>>
>>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>
>>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told (#terminate) to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by design.  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't want
>>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until it's
>>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just signal the
>>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>>
>>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which is not open."
>>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This process will stop the connection attempt."
>>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>>
>>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it. It
>>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin, they
>>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from the fact that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it should have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the remedy for working while blocking operations happen in the background is threading, and most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Levente
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or JavaScript,
>>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring additional
>>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>]
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent would be cool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some of
>>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color, border
>>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic set of
>>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only problem is
>>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:25 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>
>> Levente,
>>
>> We can twist words indefinitely.  I have been describing a blocking connect, because that is precisely what one should be trying to do: put one thread on hold until the calling thread is connected.  There is no sensible default waiting period for that to happen, and so the framework should not be asking for a time limit at all, let alone insisting on one.
>
> My example was just a proof against the "we need a new socket
> implementation because the current one blocks the image" theory.
>
> And you're wrong about the timeouts. If sockets could wait indefinitely,
> the chance for resource leakage would be very high. I'm pretty sure that
> even if you omit the timeout (which is possible with the current API)
> there will be another timeout at the OS level which you can't/shouldn't
> work around.
>
> Here is an example for a blocking connection without a timeout:
>
> Transcript open.
> [
>        | s |
>        [
>                s := Socket new.
>                s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>                Transcript show: 'Connecting...'; cr.
>                [ s statusString = 'waitingForConnection' ] whileTrue: [
>                        s semaphore wait. "No timeout." ].
>                Transcript show: s statusString; cr.
>                s close ] ensure: [ s destroy ] ] fork.
>
>>
>> ConnectionQueue being at the heart of a Squeak socket server is not my idea; I read that in various places, tried, and was appalled to discover that it times out, returns nil, etc.  It is a complete mess that polls for a time period when it should be blocking a thread until an event occurs.
>
> ConnectionQueue is just a high level API, you can always use _Sockets_.
>
>
> Levente
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:51 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> Levente,
>>>
>>> Something has to block while a connection attempt is pending, and not just until some arbitrary time limit.  The client code is bad enough; the servers are horrible.
>>
>> If the UI Process is using the Socket and it's using a blocking connection
>> method, then - no surprise - it will be blocked. This won't affect other
>> processes.
>>
>> If you were right, the following would block the UI Process for 100
>> seconds, but it doesn't block it at all, just try it:
>>
>> Transcript open.
>> [ 10 timesRepeat: [
>>        | s |
>>        [
>>                s := Socket new.
>>                s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>>                s
>>                        waitForConnectionFor: 10
>>                        ifTimedOut: [ Transcript show: 'Couldn''t connect.'; cr ].
>>                s isConnected ifTrue: [
>>                        Transcript show: 'Connected.'; cr. ].
>>                s close ] ensure: [
>>                        s ifNotNil: [ s destroy ] ] ] ] fork.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "servers"? ConnectionQueue?
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> the one running the gui
>>>
>>> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run, because
>>> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because of
>>> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too) about
>>> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
>>> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>>>
>>>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told (#terminate) to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by design.  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't want
>>>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until it's
>>>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just signal the
>>>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>>>
>>>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which is not open."
>>>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This process will stop the connection attempt."
>>>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>>>
>>>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it. It
>>>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin, they
>>>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Levente
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi [[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from the fact that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it should have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the remedy for working while blocking operations happen in the background is threading, and most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guillermo Polito [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what cost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or JavaScript,
>>>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring additional
>>>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent would be cool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some of
>>>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color, border
>>>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic set of
>>>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only problem is
>>>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>
> Levente
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email]
>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>> [[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:04 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>> action is UIless
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> Levente,
>>>
>>> I never said that.  I said that if it were built properly and used
>>> naively, it would have led to problems.  Enter timeouts that should not be
>>> present.  The server side is almost impossible to defend as it stands.
>>
>> Oh really?
>> Here is a simple example of a "timeout-free" server and a simple client
>> that you can try in a workspace:
>>
>> "Start a new echo server on 127.0.0.1:12345"
>> [
>>       [
>>               serverSocket := Socket new.
>>               serverSocket listenOn: 12345 backlogSize: 10 interface:
>> #[127 0 0 1].
>>               [ serverSocket statusString = 'waitingForConnection' ]
>> whileTrue: [
>>                       serverSocket semaphore wait.
>>                       serverSocket statusString = 'connected' ifTrue: [
>>                               | socket |
>>                               socket := serverSocket accept.
>>                               [
>>                                       [
>>                                               | data |
>>                                               data := socket receiveData.
>>                                               socket sendData: data.
>>                                               socket close ]
>>                                                       ensure: [ socket
>> destroy ] ] fork ] ].
>>               serverSocket close ] ensure: [ serverSocket destroy ] ]
>> fork.
>>
>> "Fire up a client which tests the above server and writes it's output to
>> the Transcript."
>> Transcript open.
>> [
>>       clientSocket := Socket new.
>>       clientSocket connectTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 12345.
>>       clientSocket sendData: 'Hello Wolrd!'.
>>       Transcript show: clientSocket receiveData; cr.
>>       clientSocket close ] ensure: [ clientSocket destroy ].
>>
>> "Stop the server"
>> serverSocket close.
>>
>>
>> If you know how to use Sockets, then it's really easy to do what you want.
>>
>>>
>>> Sockets don't decide when to free resources.  Threads and users do.
>>
>> That's right, user timeouts are optional as I showed you in various
>> examples.
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email]
>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>> [[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:25 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>> action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Levente,
>>>>
>>>> We can twist words indefinitely.  I have been describing a blocking
>>>> connect, because that is precisely what one should be trying to do: put one
>>>> thread on hold until the calling thread is connected.  There is no sensible
>>>> default waiting period for that to happen, and so the framework should not
>>>> be asking for a time limit at all, let alone insisting on one.
>>>
>>> My example was just a proof against the "we need a new socket
>>> implementation because the current one blocks the image" theory.
>>>
>>> And you're wrong about the timeouts. If sockets could wait indefinitely,
>>> the chance for resource leakage would be very high. I'm pretty sure that
>>> even if you omit the timeout (which is possible with the current API)
>>> there will be another timeout at the OS level which you can't/shouldn't
>>> work around.
>>>
>>> Here is an example for a blocking connection without a timeout:
>>>
>>> Transcript open.
>>> [
>>>       | s |
>>>       [
>>>               s := Socket new.
>>>               s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>>>               Transcript show: 'Connecting...'; cr.
>>>               [ s statusString = 'waitingForConnection' ] whileTrue: [
>>>                       s semaphore wait. "No timeout." ].
>>>               Transcript show: s statusString; cr.
>>>               s close ] ensure: [ s destroy ] ] fork.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ConnectionQueue being at the heart of a Squeak socket server is not my
>>>> idea; I read that in various places, tried, and was appalled to discover
>>>> that it times out, returns nil, etc.  It is a complete mess that polls for a
>>>> time period when it should be blocking a thread until an event occurs.
>>>
>>> ConnectionQueue is just a high level API, you can always use _Sockets_.
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:51 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>> action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>
>>>>> Something has to block while a connection attempt is pending, and not
>>>>> just until some arbitrary time limit.  The client code is bad enough; the
>>>>> servers are horrible.
>>>>
>>>> If the UI Process is using the Socket and it's using a blocking
>>>> connection
>>>> method, then - no surprise - it will be blocked. This won't affect other
>>>> processes.
>>>>
>>>> If you were right, the following would block the UI Process for 100
>>>> seconds, but it doesn't block it at all, just try it:
>>>>
>>>> Transcript open.
>>>> [ 10 timesRepeat: [
>>>>       | s |
>>>>       [
>>>>               s := Socket new.
>>>>               s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>>>>               s
>>>>                       waitForConnectionFor: 10
>>>>                       ifTimedOut: [ Transcript show: 'Couldn''t
>>>> connect.'; cr ].
>>>>               s isConnected ifTrue: [
>>>>                       Transcript show: 'Connected.'; cr. ].
>>>>               s close ] ensure: [
>>>>                       s ifNotNil: [ s destroy ] ] ] ] fork.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "servers"? ConnectionQueue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> the one running the gui
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run, because
>>>>> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because
>>>>> of
>>>>> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too) about
>>>>> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
>>>>> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Levente
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to
>>>>>>> allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client
>>>>>>>> conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told (#terminate)
>>>>>>>> to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by design.
>>>>>>>>  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>>>>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>>>>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just
>>>>>>> signal the
>>>>>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>>>>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which
>>>>>>> is not open."
>>>>>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This
>>>>>>> process will stop the connection attempt."
>>>>>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>>>>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can
>>>>>>> terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it. It
>>>>>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>>>>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only
>>>>>>>>> part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from the fact
>>>>>>>>> that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it should
>>>>>>>>> have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the remedy for
>>>>>>>>> working while blocking operations happen in the background is threading, and
>>>>>>>>> most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Guillermo Polito
>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while
>>>>>>>>> doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that
>>>>>>>>> affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made
>>>>>>>>>> based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what cost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or
>>>>>>>>> JavaScript,
>>>>>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring
>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse
>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar
>>>>>>>>>>> showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>       [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent would
>>>>>>>>>>> be cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color,
>>>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic
>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only
>>>>>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> 2010/9/24 Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]>:
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>
>>> Please delve into #connectTo:port: - you will find a timeout there.
>>
>> As I said, only the server is timeout free. If you want a timeout-free
>> example for a client, you can find one in this thread.
>>
> In your example a server won't work reliably,
> since 'socket sendData'
> as well as 'socket receiveData'
> may fail, and so, you will quit the process with unhandled error.
>
> This is what actually all of us don't want to see happened on mission
> critical services.
>
> If you don't sure how to use timeouts, and don't want to handle every
> tiny error,
> which can happen inside a server loop, then
> simply wrap it with error eater, then at least it won't stop serving
> requests.
>
> Even better approach is to set up a watchdog process, which checks
> that server is alive,
> and unconditionally terminates server process and starting a fresh new
> one, if there is no 'i'm still alive' signal
> received from server process in reasonable amount of time.
> Then you can minimize the service down time to period, which you using
> in your watchdog process.
>
>
> The exampel is simple, not complete. The error in #sendData and #receiveData
> won't kill the server, just the process which had the error. There are
> plenty of other possible error sources in that code.
> The point of the example is that you can accept connections without defining
> timeouts, because timeouts are why Bill considers the current Socket
> implementation crap.
>
>

> Levente
>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: [hidden email]
>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>> [[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:04 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>> action is UIless
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Levente,
>>>>
>>>> I never said that.  I said that if it were built properly and used
>>>> naively, it would have led to problems.  Enter timeouts that should not
>>>> be
>>>> present.  The server side is almost impossible to defend as it stands.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>> Here is a simple example of a "timeout-free" server and a simple client
>>> that you can try in a workspace:
>>>
>>> "Start a new echo server on 127.0.0.1:12345"
>>> [
>>>       [
>>>               serverSocket := Socket new.
>>>               serverSocket listenOn: 12345 backlogSize: 10 interface:
>>> #[127 0 0 1].
>>>               [ serverSocket statusString = 'waitingForConnection' ]
>>> whileTrue: [
>>>                       serverSocket semaphore wait.
>>>                       serverSocket statusString = 'connected' ifTrue: [
>>>                               | socket |
>>>                               socket := serverSocket accept.
>>>                               [
>>>                                       [
>>>                                               | data |
>>>                                               data := socket receiveData.
>>>                                               socket sendData: data.
>>>                                               socket close ]
>>>                                                       ensure: [ socket
>>> destroy ] ] fork ] ].
>>>               serverSocket close ] ensure: [ serverSocket destroy ] ]
>>> fork.
>>>
>>> "Fire up a client which tests the above server and writes it's output to
>>> the Transcript."
>>> Transcript open.
>>> [
>>>       clientSocket := Socket new.
>>>       clientSocket connectTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 12345.
>>>       clientSocket sendData: 'Hello Wolrd!'.
>>>       Transcript show: clientSocket receiveData; cr.
>>>       clientSocket close ] ensure: [ clientSocket destroy ].
>>>
>>> "Stop the server"
>>> serverSocket close.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you know how to use Sockets, then it's really easy to do what you
>>> want.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sockets don't decide when to free resources.  Threads and users do.
>>>
>>> That's right, user timeouts are optional as I showed you in various
>>> examples.
>>>
>>>
>>> Levente
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>> Uzonyi
>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:25 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>> action is UIless
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>
>>>>> We can twist words indefinitely.  I have been describing a blocking
>>>>> connect, because that is precisely what one should be trying to do: put
>>>>> one
>>>>> thread on hold until the calling thread is connected.  There is no
>>>>> sensible
>>>>> default waiting period for that to happen, and so the framework should
>>>>> not
>>>>> be asking for a time limit at all, let alone insisting on one.
>>>>
>>>> My example was just a proof against the "we need a new socket
>>>> implementation because the current one blocks the image" theory.
>>>>
>>>> And you're wrong about the timeouts. If sockets could wait indefinitely,
>>>> the chance for resource leakage would be very high. I'm pretty sure that
>>>> even if you omit the timeout (which is possible with the current API)
>>>> there will be another timeout at the OS level which you can't/shouldn't
>>>> work around.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example for a blocking connection without a timeout:
>>>>
>>>> Transcript open.
>>>> [
>>>>       | s |
>>>>       [
>>>>               s := Socket new.
>>>>               s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>>>>               Transcript show: 'Connecting...'; cr.
>>>>               [ s statusString = 'waitingForConnection' ] whileTrue: [
>>>>                       s semaphore wait. "No timeout." ].
>>>>               Transcript show: s statusString; cr.
>>>>               s close ] ensure: [ s destroy ] ] fork.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ConnectionQueue being at the heart of a Squeak socket server is not my
>>>>> idea; I read that in various places, tried, and was appalled to
>>>>> discover
>>>>> that it times out, returns nil, etc.  It is a complete mess that polls
>>>>> for a
>>>>> time period when it should be blocking a thread until an event occurs.
>>>>
>>>> ConnectionQueue is just a high level API, you can always use _Sockets_.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Levente
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>>> Uzonyi
>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:51 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something has to block while a connection attempt is pending, and not
>>>>>> just until some arbitrary time limit.  The client code is bad enough;
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> servers are horrible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the UI Process is using the Socket and it's using a blocking
>>>>> connection
>>>>> method, then - no surprise - it will be blocked. This won't affect
>>>>> other
>>>>> processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were right, the following would block the UI Process for 100
>>>>> seconds, but it doesn't block it at all, just try it:
>>>>>
>>>>> Transcript open.
>>>>> [ 10 timesRepeat: [
>>>>>       | s |
>>>>>       [
>>>>>               s := Socket new.
>>>>>               s connectNonBlockingTo: #[172 16 0 1] port: 12345.
>>>>>               s
>>>>>                       waitForConnectionFor: 10
>>>>>                       ifTimedOut: [ Transcript show: 'Couldn''t
>>>>> connect.'; cr ].
>>>>>               s isConnected ifTrue: [
>>>>>                       Transcript show: 'Connected.'; cr. ].
>>>>>               s close ] ensure: [
>>>>>                       s ifNotNil: [ s destroy ] ] ] ] fork.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "servers"? ConnectionQueue?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Levente
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>>>> Uzonyi
>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:55 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the one running the gui
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, you're wrong. The UI Process will be able to run,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> other processes using Sockets will wait on Semaphores and not because
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> "time limits". So I just convinced myself (and hopefully you too)
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> that using Socket instances will not hang the entire image, just the
>>>>>> Process that uses the Socket. Therefore the SocketPlugin is as good as
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>>>>> Uzonyi
>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:14 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that an
>>>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scratch around, and you will find that the time limits are there to
>>>>>>>> allow calls to made on the main thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where? In the Socket class? And what's the "main thread"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>>>>>> Uzonyi
>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:13 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> action is UIless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Levente,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they worked correctly, they would, at least under naive client
>>>>>>>>> conditions - a connection attempt should try until it is told
>>>>>>>>> (#terminate)
>>>>>>>>> to stop.  Severs that listen for a limited time are broken by
>>>>>>>>> design.
>>>>>>>>>  ConnectionQueue polls as a result - it's pretty bad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you're using Socket>>#connectTo:port: which uses
>>>>>>>> Socket class>>#standardTimeout as timeout (45 seconds). If you don't
>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>> the default timeout, use #connectTo:port:waitForConnectionFor: or
>>>>>>>> implement your own low level method which waits on semaphore until
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> signaled. If you want to terminate the connection attempt, just
>>>>>>>> signal the
>>>>>>>> semaphore yourself, like here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> s := Socket newTCP.
>>>>>>>> s connectNonBlockingTo: #[127 0 0 1] port: 19327. "Random port which
>>>>>>>> is not open."
>>>>>>>> [ 500 milliSeconds asDelay wait. s semaphore signal ] fork. "This
>>>>>>>> process will stop the connection attempt."
>>>>>>>> s semaphore waitTimeoutMSecs: 1000.
>>>>>>>> s statusString. "This will simply print the socket status. You can
>>>>>>>> terminate the process here if the socket is connected, etc."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And for ConnectionQueue, simply don't use it if you don't like it.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> doesn't have to poll at all, AFAIK it's just implemented that way.
>>>>>>>> Since Sockets use Semaphores which are signaled by the SocketPlugin,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> don't block the image at all. But correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Levente
>>>>>>>>> Uzonyi
>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:01 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guillermo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One has to be careful with assuming that something affects only
>>>>>>>>>> part of the image.  Much of Squeak's networking trouble comes from
>>>>>>>>>> the fact
>>>>>>>>>> that it was designed to block the image for a limited time when it
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> have been blocking only one Process *indefinitely*.  But, the
>>>>>>>>>> remedy for
>>>>>>>>>> working while blocking operations happen in the background is
>>>>>>>>>> threading, and
>>>>>>>>>> most of the image is deliberately not thread safe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When does a Socket block the image?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Levente
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>>> Guillermo Polito
>>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 10:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare that
>>>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 to Bill's.  If we can't have a feedback from the system while
>>>>>>>>>> doing silent actions, we can think it just freezed :S.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it's something already dicussed, but I don't like actions that
>>>>>>>>>> affect only a part of the system blocking my whole image.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guille
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Igor Stasenko
>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20 September 2010 03:09, Schwab,Wilhelm K
>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Slow access can be a big problem.  Any such change should be made
>>>>>>>>>>> based on measurements so we know what benefit we get at what
>>>>>>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it would be much easier to deal that line in Self or
>>>>>>>>>> JavaScript,
>>>>>>>>>> where you can add any properties to object
>>>>>>>>>> on the fly, without need of adding a methods or declaring
>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>> instance variable in class...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko
>>>>>>>>>>> [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 7:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] we need to find a way to declare
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> an action is UIless
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 September 2010 13:12, Stéphane Ducasse
>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> hi guys
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to add borderStyle to BorderedMorph and the progressbar
>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the progress blow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we should really have a way to specify silent ui action.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody have an idea how I could do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       [BorderedMorph addInstVarNamed: 'borderStyle'] silent
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> use morph propertyAt: #borderStyle
>>>>>>>>>>> so you don't have to break your head with it :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BorderedMorph having an enormous number of subclasses, while some
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> them even don't using any
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of borders. That's makes me wonder if anything like color,
>>>>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>>>>> style etc should belong to root classes
>>>>>>>>>>> in hierarchy, like Morph or BorderedMorph. I think that dynamic
>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>> properties (which is currently sits in morphic
>>>>>>>>>>> extensions are more appropriate storage for them). The only
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> that accessing them is much slower than ivars.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stef
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>