Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Martin
> 
> are these changes related to the graphs you sent?

Yes, you should be able to duplicate the graphs after filing in the code 
I sent. Sorry for not giving the two the same subject line; I was in too 
much of a hurry that night.

But the code I sent isn't quite ready to integrate; see below.

> I will have a look after my hospital check.
> Andres? Nicolas?
> Any feedback?

My own feedback to my code:
Last night I discovered two problems with the filein I sent:
* It's a Unix full of linefeeds, so creates lousy-looking (though fast 
:-) code when filed in.

* There's a typo that leaves an identityHash method in Object's method 
dictionary, where it does not belong.



Andres sent some improvements to my code to the list Sun, 25 Oct 2009 
03:29:31 -0700. The major changes to my code are:

* His list of 'good primes' is better than mine. I am heartily in favor 
of this change.

* His update procedure is much more careful to not upset a running 
system. The new code changes hashing, and so requires rehashing all of 
the existing hashed collections in the system. My code depends on 
nothing much else going on in the system during a critical part of the 
upgrade; Andres' updating code is more complex, but is intended to be 
safe (and as far as I can tell is safe) to be stopped at any point in 
the upgrade and the system will continue to run. Which approach you want 
to use depends on how you will package the change for users, I suppose.

* I increased (by bitShift: 18) the range of values answered by 
#identityHash, and introduced a new #primIdentityHash method that 
answers the old limited-range values. Andres took an alternative 
approach; he left #identityHash alone and introduced a new 
#scaledIdentityHash with the increased range.

On this last change, I'd like some feedback on which way the community 
would like to go. Actually changing #identityHash, as I did, seems to me 
to be the cleaner answer going forward. Leaving #identityHash alone, as 
Andres did, has less chance of breaking existing non-core code.

Andres and I discussed this issue last night. I'm still in favor of 
changing #identityHash, though I'm certainly not 100% sure that's the 
best way to go. I believe that Andres is still in favor of the other 
approach. I hope he'll contribute to this discussion.


> Martin I imagine that I can package the changes :)

Great, thanks! Once we figure out which approaches to take, either 
Andres or I will get you some final code to package.

Regards,

-Martin


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to