On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 06.12.2011 16:35, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Henrik Sperre Johansen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 06.12.2011 15:55, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Stefan Marr <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi: >>> >>> I got here a Monticello package that does not properly load using the >>> Metacello configuration. The image freezes and cmd+. does not pop up a >>> debugger anymore. >>> >> >> >>> Is there a way to force Monticello/Metacello to fall back on the >>> included source instead of using the binary snapshot? (I guess that is >>> going wrong for some reason). >>> >> Not very elegant, but you can delete the .bin from the .mcz file, and >> it should fall back to importing from sources. >> >> >>> >> The binary snapshot is only for the definitions. The source is always get >> from the .sources. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean, but the source compiled when you install an >> MCDefinition, is taken from the .bin if that was the source of it. (its >> source instvar is a string, not a pointer to source location in .sources >> file). >> >> > > It seems I was wrong. All I wanted to say is that the final representation > of code (classes, compiled methods, etc) are compiled from source code. > The snapshot does not include a "binary represenation of the code". The > code is always needed. What I thought is that it was always from > sources.st , but you say it can be from the bin as well. > > Yup! > > OT: Which, as you surely know, is also why a more radical > rethinking/restructuring than the neat experiment Tobias Pape posted > recently is needed if one wanted to take full advantage of a Fuel > monticello format :) Eliminate the compilation step, and mcz loading would > probably be FAST! > > Yes. With the experiment of Tobias, the #writeSnapshot: and #loadDefinitions took only 1% of the whole process.....so... Now, for that radical change you mention, we have started to think a little bit: 1) we need to store the source code anyway. This is because we would need to recompile all CompiledMethod (because of instance variable accessing bytecodes) when the superclass of a class which is in the image changes it shape (hence, instance variables moved their index). For this purpose, we thought we can easily store the source code in the method trailer and serialize that. The thing is at materialization. What do we once we have materialized? we keep the sources in teh CM or we put them in the .changes file and we put back a .changes pointer in the trailer??? should a load of a package always store in .changes ? 2) Since we materialize classes without class builder, and this monster does everything together, we need to analyze what has to be done exactly when materializing a package for example: notify class creation/modification, validations (what happens if the class already exist, etc.), etc, etc. This is the most difficult part for us, since understanding what the classbuilder does is complicated.... Our progress is in FuelPackageLoader... Cheers -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
