Re: Tomcat or PHP in ST ?

On May 13, 2007, at 5:41 PM, prunedtree wrote:

> The issue is mainly that it uses dialect-specific code
> (thisContext...), not the semantics it uses.

Well, that's a bit misleading. thisContext was part of Smalltalk-80,  
and is described in the Blue Book. It's only dialect-specific in that  
some dialects don't conform to the Blue Book.

> There are going to be some limits to continuation support in
> strongtalk simply because strongtalk supports callbacks, and thus you
> can get volatile frames on the stack. Expecting that you can blindly
> serialize anything in a system that interacts with the external world
> doesn't sound like a good idea.

Blindly? Seaside's implementation of continuations is suited the  
platform it runs on. On Squeak, activation contexts are uniform, and  
the implementation is simple. If Strongtalk supported thisContext,  
I'd expect the implementation would be more complicated, in order to  
deal with calls in and out of foreign code.  That's fine. If only  
stacks with purely Smalltalk contexts can be serialized, that's fine,  
too. Gemstone implemented continuations with VM support as part of  
their Seaside port. It seems to work fine.

Continuations aren't that scary, and Seaside/Strongtalk would be an  
awfully nice combination.

Colin

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---