On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Awesome! I'll immediately will stop all my important work and start playing
> with it. I'm really interested how it will perform over high latency
> connections.
>
> Well done,
>
> Norbert
>
> Am 18.07.2016 um 12:03 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]>:
>
> I glad to release first version of RemoteDebuggingTools project. It allows
> explore and debug remote images.
>
> You can read details at
> http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/07/remote-debugging-tools-is-ready.html
Cool stuff Dennis. Does it utilise the remote image's DebuggerUI, or
DebuggerSession directly? i.e. Is the aim to remotely debug a
headless/UI-less image? This could open up some great possibilities
running a minimal image on embedded hardware.
When I read "Async evaluation ... does not wait for a result" I wonder
if there a particular need for the fork is used here?...
debugger evaluateAsync: [ [1/0] fork ].
An interesting proof demonstration would be when setting up the server
image do...
Smalltalk at: #whoami put: #IAmTheServer
then in the client do...
debugger evaluate: [ Smalltalk at: #whoami ]
although maybe its hard to bind to the remote Smalltalk rather than
the local one?
What is the tradeoff of the #evaluate: parameter being a string rather
than a block?
Without having looked at the Seamless mechanism, intuitively there
would seem some benefit having the remote system compile the string to
bind to the remote classes.
Another interesting demo might be remotely evaluating...
Object inform: 'Test'
and the notification showing up on the remote (if indeed that is the
desired behaviour)
> and watch demo at https://youtu.be/SgFjgQpo_nU.
I got a bit lost which one was client and which remote. Maybe the
next demo you could have the server and client side by side. A bit of
overlap should be okay but it would be useful for the debug
notification appearing in the client to be immediately visible when an
error is is caused in the server image. It would be intuitive if the
web browser fully overlapped the server image it connected to.
cheers -ben
