r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3 Modules] Get help with R3's module system

BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[154]
There are real downsides to explicit import. Choose what works for 
your situation.
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[155]
I'm also pretty sure that upgrading "private" modules is possible.
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[156]
For instance, with explicit import you can't upgrade a running process. 
That can be a disadvantage for some apps.
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[157x2]
But that doesn't worry me at all, at the moment. If R3 ever reaches 
the stability and maturity that such long-running become realistic, 
then I'll start to worry about in-place upgrades.
such long-running processes*
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[159x2]
Part of exporting is copying the values to another context, where 
it is used. You don't normally get any references to the original 
module words. And part of importing is copying those words again 
to your own context (for isolated modules and for scripts), or binding 
to the runtime library. So in practice, the only known contexts that 
you can update the values in are your own, the runtime library, and 
the current task's user context. To upgrade other contexts they would 
need to register with you, and you would have to do them one at a 
time.
REBOL processes tend to run for years, if they don't have bugs and 
don't use a buggy REBOL. Do you remember the first mailing list outage?
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[161x2]
Luckily, we can change allmost all of that.
But this copying you mention should actually make the updates I have 
in mind easier.
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[163]
If you meant my last long message by "we can change allmost all of 
that" then no, not in the base system. You can work around it in 
your own code though.
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[164]
As far as I understood the boot levels allow us to get rid of most 
of the default module system alltogether.
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[165]
Yup. That is one of the workarounds I mentioned.
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[166x2]
Too good a feature to call it a workaround.
What about the mailing list outage?
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[168]
You say that having not worked with the module system, but yes, if 
you say so :)
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[169x2]
I say that having followed the discussion around it and read the 
documentation and posts about it.
And I really appreciate the work you put into it.
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[171x2]
The first REBOL mailing list outage happened because the server rebooted. 
The REBOL process that was running the mailing list had been started 
manually, and just kept running. They forgot to add the startup code 
for the mailing list to the init code for the server. But noone knew 
this because the process just kept running for more than 3 years. 
It took a UPS failure to stop the list.
That is the kind of runtime that REBOL is designed to support :)
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[173x2]
Ah yes, the legendary REBOL mailing list script.
Times long gone :)
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[175x2]
OK, most of the discussion of the new module system so far has been 
in a private world. And the final working system hasn't been released 
yet. And the documentation is outdated. So pardon me if I say that 
you should reserve judgement. But still, being to remove the module 
system with a boot level is a pretty cool feature :)
One which I haven't tested yet :(
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[177x2]
Because it doesn't work.
At least I couldn't figure out how to call R3 so that it respects 
the boot-level flag.
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[179x4]
I don't know, I haven't tested it yet.
My first priority was to get the module system working, and fix the 
slight design flaws that the previous system had (mostly the API 
of IMPORT). Boot levels are next.
You'd be shocked at how many significant subtleties are tested for 
in the test code. And that code isn't even complete yet.
It made sense though: It's easier to deliberately not load something 
when you know what you're not loading.
Andreas
22-Oct-2010
[183]
I'd probably not :)
BrianH
22-Oct-2010
[184x2]
Be shocked, I guess. Actually, I was just shocked: The mod-test.r 
file only has 696 lines in it at the moment. I guess this is a testament 
to how compact we can make REBOL scripts with the new system :)
Later! :)
Carl
23-Oct-2010
[186x5]
Andreas: boot level info is found here:
>> usage

Example:
r3 -b sys


But, this is magic guru stuff because the boot is stopped early, 
which means that most of the nice funcs you depend on are not yet 
alive.
on boot-level sys, you'll also find that the user context does not 
exist, it is the same as the lib context
core
>> print stats
856824

core -b sys
>> print stats
793984

core -b base
>> print stats
573336
Note that -b base is not useful for you (it's for me) because schemes 
are not yet init'd.  It's a bit like booting an OS without the file 
system.
Also, -b sys is somewhat useful, because there is a very minimal 
LOAD that should work.
Andreas
23-Oct-2010
[191x3]
USAGE says:
	--boot-level L   Where L can be: base sys mods
Reported as #1713.
And from the hostkit: the long option name actually is "--boot".
BrianH
23-Oct-2010
[194]
I like that better. Nice catch.
Andreas
31-Oct-2010
[195x2]
Quick Q: are modules supposed to actually work with A109?
Because it seems I can't even get http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0344.html
to work.
BrianH
31-Oct-2010
[197x4]
No, they don't quite work in 109. All of the problems with modules 
have been fixed for alpha 110.
But in theory the stuff in that blog should have worked even in a109.
Next week, as time allows, I will be reformatting the module system 
into a loadable script that can work at lower boot levels. This will 
both be good documentation and allow better testing, for the module 
system and the boot levels too.
See here for the bug announcement, in the comments to the release 
announcement: http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0343#comments
Andreas
31-Oct-2010
[201x3]
As far as I can tell, hardly any of the "basic" features work in 
A109.
Doing a plain import %module.r from the console only works as expected 
if the module is named and not private. Unnamed, private+named, private+unnamed 
modules seem to not work.
Here's what I tried:
https://gist.github.com/cd03af7ddacc2eb9a2e3