On 11.10.2011 21:51, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Philippe Marschall > <philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch > <mailto:philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch>> wrote: > > On 10/08/2011 10:42 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > s > > > >>> > >>> This is IMHO more than necessary for Fuel to become a production > ready > >>> serializer and I'd say Fuel is now "old enough" to become such :) > >> > >> Yes. > >> Now what I would love is that even if fuel changes that the > evolution of > >> information > >> is taken into account because like that it will be exercised for > real. > >> > >> > > No, that's impossible, and if posible, it is not worth it. > Migrating from an > > old format to a new one is extremelly complicated and innecessary. The > > easiest way to solve this is to take the correct version of Fuel, > > materialize the graph from the stream, load new version of Fuel, and > > seriaize it again. That the easiest, more secure, and more practical > > approach I can see. > > That is horribly naïve an excludes fuel from a lot of use cases. You > can't use fuel for "archiving" objects outside of the image because you > will never know whether you will be able to read them in again because > the format changes. You will always need to have "live" ones in the > image. > > > No. That's incorrect. You won't be able to do that ONLY if you update > Fuel to a new image that breaks format. > You can still continue to use the same version and you will never have > that problem. So, again, why you need to update Fuel?
Because it's old software. Bugs may not get fixed. It may not work in newer Pharo versions. I may have dependencies on other libraries that may require a new version of Fuel. You name it. > Why SmartRefStream does not have this problem? because it hasn't > changed in the last 10 years. > So..do the same, take an specific Fuel version and keep it for 10 years. > Just update it to make it work in Pharo without changing the format and > you are done. > > > > That means you can't use fuel for anything Monticello related because > you may never be able to load those versions in again because the file > format has changed in the mean time. > > > I guess that in the end, if someone can really do something for > Monticello on top of Fuel it will be like 2 years from now, and at some > point Fuel format will be stable. > And as Stef says...you always have the code there in case of problems. Monticello is just an example for a case where I want to store objects outside of the image. Cheers Philippe
