28 Sep
2004
28 Sep
'04
4:16 p.m.
I'm using VW and yes I have not stripped my image. No need in my case.
Even if I did strip my image I would not have the same problem since I
don't rely on the auto image save storage mechanism but rather I built a
storage strategy that uses BOSS i.e. the contents are bossed out at
regular intervals given that there is new content to save. Finally, as
long as one has left the appropriate classes in the image there should not
be a problem in VW with doing auto image saves although in general I don't
like the idea any how.
-Charles
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:49:36 +0200, Alexandre Bergel <bergel(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
We use VNC to
connect and then on unix I imagine that exec does that
for you, running a process that is not killing when you exit
your session
Right. The think with stripping an image is that there is some problem
with the saving mechanism of Smallwiki. The image is saved automatically
each hour and it does not work properly with a stripped image.
I already mention this problem to the vwnc mailing list I guess... I do
not know if this has changed yet.
We use VNC on our solaris server to hold the X session, and on our mac
we use the X11 server to connect to it. It works pretty fine.
However, with Squeak there should not be any problem to have a non-gui
version. But we did not find it necessary to have it here, at the
University.
Bytecode modification is extremely easy to do in Smalltalk. A 10 second
long example (made with Squeak). In a workspace do the following:
Object compile: 'foo ^ 1 + 2'. "Object new foo => 3"
(Object >> #foo) at: 7 put: 177. "The bytecode 177 does a - between the
operand"
Object new foo => -1
But I guess we are loosing track of this mailing list :-)
Cheers,
Alexandre