[Cuis-dev] Improved version of #terminate

[Jaromir Matas]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20220124/b8600ac4/attachment-0001.htm>