[Cuis-dev] Improved version of #terminate

[Jaromir Matas]

Hi Juan,

I’m reviewing the set of terminate examples and this one behaves suspiciously – it suspends the UI as expected but then the system refuses to recover via Alt + .
In Squeak the Alt + . recovery works fine. Could you please take look? Thanks!
Jaromir

[ ] ensure: [
                [Processor activeProcess terminate] ensure: [
                                Transcript show: #x1].
                Transcript show: #x2
                ]
"prints x1 x2 and suspends the UI; in Cuis NOT recoverable via Alt+. and prints Can not interrupt backgroundProcess (!)"

From: Jaromir Matas via Cuis-dev<mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 20:59
To: Juan Vuletich<mailto:JuanVuletich at zoho.com>; Discussion of Cuis Smalltalk<mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
Cc: Jaromir Matas<mailto:mail at jaromir.net>
Subject: Re: [Cuis-dev] Improved version of #terminate

Hi Juan,

Thank you!
I'm sending the test I owe you - #testProcessFaithfulTermination - this is a new feature of the latest terminate; the test shows the same process that created the unwind blocks also executes them during termination.

I’ll be reviewing the terminate examples and get back later.
Thanks again.
Best,
Jaromir

From: Juan Vuletich<mailto:JuanVuletich at zoho.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 19:21
To: Discussion of Cuis Smalltalk<mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
Cc: Jaromir Matas<mailto:mail at jaromir.net>
Subject: Re: [Cuis-dev] Improved version of #terminate

Hi Jaromir, Folks,

This is integrated and pushed to GitHub now.

Thanks,

On 1/24/2022 3:51 PM, Jaromir Matas via Cuis-dev wrote:

Hi Juan, all,

Happy to hear from you :)

Hello Jaromir, Folks,

I took a look at the code, and it looks correct to me, although I don't understand this well enough to be sure. All the tests you wrote last year pass, and that is great.

I think we'd integrate this. Still, I think it could be good to keep the current #terminate as a separate method, maybe #terminateFromForkedProcess, just in case it proves
useful in the future.

Thanks very much for reviewing the code; I think this is a good idea to keep the older version, at least for a while. I'm really happy it's been stable and nobody
complained :)

This new approach of one process using two stacks simplifies the code substantially but let's keep an eye on it, for sure. Later, if this terminate proves as
stable as the current one, the exact same approach could be used for exception unwinds too (ContextPart>>resume: etc).

I'd be very thankful if others could take a look, and better yet, try it and see if it brings any trouble.

That would be great, thanks again; any concerns or suspicions, please tell me.

Best regards,

Jaromir

--

Jaromir Matas


From: Juan Vuletich via Cuis-dev<mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 18:15
To: Discussion of Cuis Smalltalk<mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
Cc: Juan Vuletich<mailto:JuanVuletich at zoho.com>; Andres Valloud<mailto:ten at smallinteger.com>; Jaromir Matas<mailto:mail at jaromir.net>; Hernan Wilkinson<mailto:hernan.wilkinson at 10pines.com>
Subject: Re: [Cuis-dev] Improved version of #terminate

On 1/18/2022 4:07 PM, Jaromir Matas via Cuis-dev wrote:
Hi Juan, all,

I'm enclosing a new version of #terminate; I thought you might be interested to take a look and indeed, I'd be very much interested in your opinion. The termination functionality and semantics remains intact but the code is simplified and addresses Eliot's concerns regarding active process termination being done via another process. The enclosed code executes both active and suspended process’s termination directly by the process being terminated thus maintaining the invariant that the unwind blocks are executed by the same process that created them (this is the only real disadvantage of the current terminate; it’s not process faithful). The technique used is to create a parallel stack for the process being terminated and run the unwinds conveniently from there :) (thorough comments included).

I'm also enclosing some updated tests to reflect the new approach to the active process termination. If you were interested, I'd be happy to also provide updated examples and add some more tests later.

Best regards,

Jaromir


Hello Jaromir, Folks,

I took a look at the code, and it looks correct to me, although I don't understand this well enough to be sure. All the tests you wrote last year pass, and that is great.

I think we'd integrate this. Still, I think it could be good to keep the current #terminate as a separate method, maybe #terminateFromForkedProcess, just in case it proves useful in the future.

I'd be very thankful if others could take a look, and better yet, try it and see if it brings any trouble.

Thanks!


--

Juan Vuletich

www.cuis-smalltalk.org<http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org>

https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev

https://github.com/jvuletich

https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3

https://independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich

@JuanVuletich




--

Juan Vuletich

www.cuis-smalltalk.org<http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org>

https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev

https://github.com/jvuletich

https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3

https://independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich

@JuanVuletich


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20220202/89af3676/attachment-0001.htm>