On 15.10.2011 15:06, Martin Dias wrote:
> I like the ideas of Stef and Ben of loading multiple fuel versions at
> the same time. Do you know something done in that sense?
> 
> Martín
> 
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck
> <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Philippe Marschall
>     <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>         On 11.10.2011 21:51, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Philippe Marschall
>         > <[email protected]
>         <mailto:[email protected]>
>         >
>         <mailto:[email protected]
>         <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>         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.
> 
> 
> 
>     I understand. What I mean is that depending on the changes and the
>     amount of work, you can just adapt Fuel to new versions of Pharo but
>     without changing its format.
>     I mean....say you were in Fuel 1.4. You don't need to move to Fuel
>     1.8 just because. You can just try to fix 1.4 to make it work in
>     latest pharo.

Oh yeah sure, I can always fork Fuel and maintain it myself. That's
exactly what I don't don't want to do.

>     That's EXACTLY what we do with ReferenceStream and friends. The only
>     difference is that the Pharo team does that because it is in the core.
>     But yes, it may happen that ideed you will require a new version of
>     Fuel.

What‽ What's the advantage of Fuel over ReferenceStream again?

>         > 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.
> 
> 
>     Well, then you can just wait until we finish. Give us one year more.
>      Instead of doing 1-year-long releases, we like to do 3 months
>     releases.
>     But again, that doesn't mean you have to update...

So you're saying I shouldn't use Fuel?

Cheers
Philippe


Reply via email to