The rewrite now works for many of the JActor tests. Still a bit of a
problem with exception handling, but I think we're close.
In the last speedup, which was checked in but not released, I combined two
objects--which is what made it faster. Turns out that was a design flaw.
I've fixed it, but that means the next release will likely be only as fast
as the last release.
I also spend a fair amount of time thinking about the complexity of the
code. I was hopeful that it could be broken into 2 or more layers, but I
now suspect that that is not possible. So it looks like the complexity can
not be avoided.
The new JLPCActor now works for all the JActor tests, but transaction
processing now exhibits a lot of strange bugs. Obviously I missed something
in the rewrite of JActor. The question is, what?
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:25 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The rewrite now works for many of the JActor tests. Still a bit of a
> problem with exception handling, but I think we're close.
> In the last speedup, which was checked in but not released, I combined two
> objects--which is what made it faster. Turns out that was a design flaw.
> I've fixed it, but that means the next release will likely be only as fast
> as the last release.
> I also spend a fair amount of time thinking about the complexity of the
> code. I was hopeful that it could be broken into 2 or more layers, but I
> now suspect that that is not possible. So it looks like the complexity can
> not be avoided.
Fixed another hole in the JLPCActor logic, this one dealing with marking a
request as inactive when processed synchronously.
JFile is still not working, but I did a push on JActor, as the code now
works better than the last push.
I also now believe that I can do the speedup that was included in the
previous push but removed from this one. But that speedup will wait until
JFile is working again. Hopefully that will be soon.
Other work has been piling up, but I very much want to get JFile working
first if I can.
Bill
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The new JLPCActor now works for all the JActor tests, but transaction
> processing now exhibits a lot of strange bugs. Obviously I missed something
> in the rewrite of JActor. The question is, what?
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:25 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> The rewrite now works for many of the JActor tests. Still a bit of a
>> problem with exception handling, but I think we're close.
>> In the last speedup, which was checked in but not released, I combined
>> two objects--which is what made it faster. Turns out that was a design
>> flaw. I've fixed it, but that means the next release will likely be only as
>> fast as the last release.
>> I also spend a fair amount of time thinking about the complexity of the
>> code. I was hopeful that it could be broken into 2 or more layers, but I
>> now suspect that that is not possible. So it looks like the complexity can
>> not be avoided.
Fixed THE bug I was tracking down in JFile. Now the intermediate JFile bug
that I experienced after the speedup and before the rewrite is back. I had
hoped that the rewrite would have expunged this bug, but it looks like
there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just note
that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but there
it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:40 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Fixed another hole in the JLPCActor logic, this one dealing with marking a
> request as inactive when processed synchronously.
> JFile is still not working, but I did a push on JActor, as the code now
> works better than the last push.
> I also now believe that I can do the speedup that was included in the
> previous push but removed from this one. But that speedup will wait until
> JFile is working again. Hopefully that will be soon.
> Other work has been piling up, but I very much want to get JFile working
> first if I can.
> Bill
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> The new JLPCActor now works for all the JActor tests, but transaction
>> processing now exhibits a lot of strange bugs. Obviously I missed something
>> in the rewrite of JActor. The question is, what?
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 7:25 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> The rewrite now works for many of the JActor tests. Still a bit of a
>>> problem with exception handling, but I think we're close.
>>> In the last speedup, which was checked in but not released, I combined
>>> two objects--which is what made it faster. Turns out that was a design
>>> flaw. I've fixed it, but that means the next release will likely be only as
>>> fast as the last release.
>>> I also spend a fair amount of time thinking about the complexity of the
>>> code. I was hopeful that it could be broken into 2 or more layers, but I
>>> now suspect that that is not possible. So it looks like the complexity can
>>> not be avoided.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just note
> that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but there
> it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good fight!
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just note
> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but
> there
> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good
> fight!
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
incorporation and income taxes.
I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not been
very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
another request. "Fun" stuff!
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time reviewing
> the code at this point.
> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
> head.
> Bill
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just note
>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but
>> there
>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good
>> fight!
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
RP.processResponse.
Gotta fix that. :-)
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
> incorporation and income taxes.
> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not been
> very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
> another request. "Fun" stuff!
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time reviewing
>> the code at this point.
>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>> head.
>> Bill
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just
>>> note
>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but
>>> there
>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good
>>> fight!
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
> I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
> processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
> that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
> RP.processResponse.
> Gotta fix that. :-)
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
>> incorporation and income taxes.
>> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not been
>> very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
>> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
>> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
>> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
>> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
>> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
>> another request. "Fun" stuff!
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time
>>> reviewing the code at this point.
>>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>>> head.
>>> Bill
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just
>>>> note
>>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but
>>>> there
>>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good
>>>> fight!
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
> OK, made a small change to JActor and the new test case now works, though
> JFile tests still fail.
> Looks like I need to create more test cases. :-/
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Finally, a bit of progress to report.
>> I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
>> processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
>> that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
>> RP.processResponse.
>> Gotta fix that. :-)
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
>>> incorporation and income taxes.
>>> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not
>>> been very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
>>> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
>>> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
>>> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
>>> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
>>> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
>>> another request. "Fun" stuff!
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time
>>>> reviewing the code at this point.
>>>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>>>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>>>> head.
>>>> Bill
>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <
>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just
>>>>> note
>>>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor, but
>>>>> there
>>>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the good
>>>>> fight!
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
> I've got a new test, many. It does not work correctly--trial returns
> control back to the start rp, not the trial rp.
> Next I've got to figure out how this happened and fix it.
> Small steps, but finally we have some forward movement.
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> OK, made a small change to JActor and the new test case now works, though
>> JFile tests still fail.
>> Looks like I need to create more test cases. :-/
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Finally, a bit of progress to report.
>>> I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
>>> processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
>>> that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
>>> RP.processResponse.
>>> Gotta fix that. :-)
>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
>>>> incorporation and income taxes.
>>>> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not
>>>> been very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
>>>> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
>>>> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
>>>> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
>>>> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
>>>> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
>>>> another request. "Fun" stuff!
>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time
>>>>> reviewing the code at this point.
>>>>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>>>>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>>>>> head.
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <
>>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll just
>>>>>> note
>>>>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor,
>>>>>> but there
>>>>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>>>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the
>>>>>> good fight!
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
> Enhanced the many test a bit. Found/fixed another bug, but JFile tests
> still fail.
> I will continue working on JActor tests--this is proving to be quite
> productive.
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I've got a new test, many. It does not work correctly--trial returns
>> control back to the start rp, not the trial rp.
>> Next I've got to figure out how this happened and fix it.
>> Small steps, but finally we have some forward movement.
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> OK, made a small change to JActor and the new test case now works,
>>> though JFile tests still fail.
>>> Looks like I need to create more test cases. :-/
>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Finally, a bit of progress to report.
>>>> I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
>>>> processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
>>>> that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
>>>> RP.processResponse.
>>>> Gotta fix that. :-)
>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
>>>>> incorporation and income taxes.
>>>>> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not
>>>>> been very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
>>>>> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
>>>>> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
>>>>> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
>>>>> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
>>>>> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
>>>>> another request. "Fun" stuff!
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time
>>>>>> reviewing the code at this point.
>>>>>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>>>>>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>>>>>> head.
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <
>>>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll
>>>>>>> just note
>>>>>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor,
>>>>>>> but there
>>>>>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>>>>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the
>>>>>>> good fight!
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
> I am very encouraged now. I made another enhancement to the many test and
> the test failed.
> Cheers!
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:47 AM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Enhanced the many test a bit. Found/fixed another bug, but JFile tests
>> still fail.
>> I will continue working on JActor tests--this is proving to be quite
>> productive.
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I've got a new test, many. It does not work correctly--trial returns
>>> control back to the start rp, not the trial rp.
>>> Next I've got to figure out how this happened and fix it.
>>> Small steps, but finally we have some forward movement.
>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> OK, made a small change to JActor and the new test case now works,
>>>> though JFile tests still fail.
>>>> Looks like I need to create more test cases. :-/
>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, William la Forge <laforg...@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Finally, a bit of progress to report.
>>>>> I've created a test that fails. The failure occurs when calling
>>>>> processResponse on a pending RP from a previous request. The failure is
>>>>> that the mailbox's current request is wrong after the call to
>>>>> RP.processResponse.
>>>>> Gotta fix that. :-)
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, William la Forge <
>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm still working on this, though I've taken some time off for our
>>>>>> incorporation and income taxes.
>>>>>> I am also still not firing on all cylinders. Working on this has not
>>>>>> been very uplifting, to say the least--at least not yet anyway!
>>>>>> I've done enough code reviews of the code and more than enough poking
>>>>>> around in the code. I have had a few insights. But at this point I need to
>>>>>> create some "minimal" test cases to force failure, and then debug them.
>>>>>> Those test cases, from what I understand, need to do things like return a
>>>>>> result from a prior request within the synchronous result processing of
>>>>>> another request. "Fun" stuff!
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:12 AM, William la Forge <
>>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, intermediate bugs can be fun. I'm going to spend some time
>>>>>>> reviewing the code at this point.
>>>>>>> Overall, the code is cleaner and has shrunk a bit. And I have a much
>>>>>>> better understanding, though the whole thing still doesn't quite fit in my
>>>>>>> head.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, William la Forge <
>>>>>>>> laforg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > The intermittent bug is due to a pipeline race condition. I'll
>>>>>>>> just note
>>>>>>>> > that it is difficult to create such race conditions with JActor,
>>>>>>>> but there
>>>>>>>> > it is--a race condition with thread-save code. Wild!
>>>>>>>> this is both exciting and terrifying. :-) good job keeping up the
>>>>>>>> good fight!
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>>>> Groups "AgileWikiDevelopers" group.
>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>>> agilewikidevelopers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/agilewikidevelopers?hl=en.
