> On 09 May 2015, at 16:41, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > From my limited experience bug hunting, calling #changed: from a thread other > than the UI thread is a source of evil. There are too many assumptions > throughout the system that the UI is single threaded. Can anyone advise me > that is not a proper belief? > > Then that implies that a Transcript implementation where #nextPut: direct > calls #changed: > is not appropriate for use with multi-threaded applications. In Pharo, > #changed: is only called from #stepGlobal, which is called from doOneCycle:. > (This came about as a last minute bug fix before Pharo 3 release and maybe > could use some cleanup. > > Separating the UI from Transcript into its own viewer might be a good idea, > but actually it would not solve Stef's case since his code would still be > running in the UI thread -- unless the viewer ran in another thread, which > would have its own complexities. > > I think the point about efficiency is significant. The following example... > Time millisecondsToRun: [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: 'x' ] ] > on Squeak 4.5 --> 12749ms > on Pharo 50029 --> 2ms > > As a point of comparison, on VW 8.0 --> 43817ms > and so you might guess, VW 8.0 outputs each 'x' immediately. > cheers -ben
I am not sure, but in VW it looks like each Workspace (Window) is (executing its Doit) in a separate thread. In any case, their abstraction, TextCollector is nicer.
