Re: Network stuff

Hi Andreas!

"Andreas Raab" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> It just so happens that I got (once more) bitten by some of the more ugly
> parts of the current networking code and it just so happens that (once more)
> Mike's Network rewrite
> (http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/030feb79-34a9-4822-9a6f-d7d2e83
> a0cef) fixes exactly the issues I was struggling with. I don't know if
> that's up on anyone's sleeve but I would really like to see this stuff
> getting into Squeak, mostly because it means that for the stuff I'm doing I
> know I can rely on proper network behavior without changing its fundamental
> semantics.
> 
> What are your current thoughts on this issue? The network rewrite has been
> around for a while now and leaving it at SqueakMap probably means it'll rot
> and die there with anyone having similar problems at hand reinventing the
> solutions he's already bundled up.

Well, since we are in alpha phase why don't we simply look it over and
get it in.

I am all for improvements. Is it simply refactorings/fixes etc? I mean,
does it lend itself well to be harvested in the light of our
conservative stance regarding bloat?

We need to "get crackin" with lots of stuff anyway so let's harvest away
and see where we end up! :-) :-)

regards, Göran
From [email protected] Tue May 06 18:26:59 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 30534 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 18:26:58 -0000
Received: from squeakland.org (65.104.119.41)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 6 May 2003 18:26:58 -0000
Received: from acm.org (gruenderlabor.cs.uni-magdeburg.de [141.44.23.5])
	by squeakland.org (8.12.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h46JF8ER005954
	for <[email protected]>;
	Tue, 6 May 2003 12:15:09 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 20:26:01 +0200
From: Michael Rueger <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Network stuff
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 18:26:59 -0000

Daniel Vainsencher wrote:


> Mike, your current stance on this would be useful...

Trying to keep up ;-)

IMHO the network rewrite should go into the update stream soon (meaning: 
now ;-) ).
As Craig wrote in another mail it basically replaces the upper layers of 
the network code and decouples it from the raw network access by always 
going through SocketStream. This should make it easier to replace the 
lower levels by e.g. Flow without breaking applications using the 
protocol clients.

I just uploaded the latest version for 3.5 (should work in 3.6 too), 
please check if I broke anything (new).


 > this effect in 3.6a, giving people time to adjust/find bugs in the core
 > Socket, if there is any. Then we can use 3.7 to break the interface (by
 > removing the default actions) and let people adjust the applications.

I agree with the above :-)

Regarding http:
I started the rewrite, then realized that I should merge it with 
Comanche. Then seaside and later Comanche NG came up and I decided to 
wait a little to see which architecture would emerge in that context. 
Now might be a good time to take a look again.

Cheers

Michael