On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 23:00 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > Thanks, Norbert, I integrated your change. > I changed the migration script to make it also work if people do > updates in an image that already has values registered for > finalization, and for all existing weak registries, not only for the > finalization registry. Like this the code and the state are in sync: > > WeakRegistry allInstancesDo: [ :each | > (each instVarNamed: 'valueDictionary') > primitiveChangeClassTo: WeakIdentityKeyDictionary basicNew; > rehash ]. > Great! I would have done something similar if I only had the knowledge :)
Norbert > Cheers, > Adrian > > On Jun 18, 2008, at 21:40 , Norbert Hartl wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 21:37 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > >> Hi Norbert, > >> > >> We do this kind of scripts in the ScriptLoader. Just let me know when > >> you published your slice and I will prepare the ScriptLoader update > >> script which Stef can then push into the update stream. > >> > > I published the slice 1 minute before sending the mail :) > > > > Have fun, > > > > Norbert > >> Adrian > >> > >> On Jun 18, 2008, at 19:30 , Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> > >>> So, > >>> > >>> now I'm all for fixing it and ressurect the test case. > >>> I'll upload something to PharoInbox. Afterwards it needs > >>> to be reinitialized. What is the preferred way of having > >>> doits in the update stream? > >>> > >>> Anyway I uploaded SLICE-WeakRegistryAndFinalizerTestFix > >>> to PharoInbox. > >>> > >>> afterwards a > >>> > >>> WeakRegistry default initialize: WeakRegistry default size > >>> > >>> will be necessary. > >>> > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> From: Andreas Raab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Date: June 18, 2008 7:02:11 PM GMT+02:00 > >>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>> Subject: [squeak-dev] Re: Bug in object finalization? > >>> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Norbert Hartl wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 09:22 -0700, Andreas Raab wrote: > >>>>> Norbert Hartl wrote: > >>>>>> There was a test in 3.9 testing this (it failed). In 3.10 > >>>>>> the test got removed but I think it is a bug. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> The test itself is buggy (see http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6347) > >>>>> but once you fix the test it illustrates a problem in > >>>>> WeakRegistry which needs to use a WeakIdentityKeyDictionary > >>>>> instead of a WeakKeyDictionary. > >>>>> > >>>> Ok, what I said. Do you see an harmful side effects by exchanging > >>>> the dictionary? > >>> > >>> No - we've fixed this a long time ago in our code base. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> - Andreas > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pharo-project mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pharo-project mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
