Re: OBJECTS.FS Question

Hi Doug

Further test have shown that this do not work for classes implementing
interfaces. I'm working on that to find out why.

Yes, I think that there is no reason to let all the class maps live in
the heap. For interfaces it is easy to embed "persistant" inside "end-
interface". For classes, it is not possible IMHO, because there are
two ways of defining them: the "Java style", with all the methods
inside the end-class definition; anth the C++ style with separate
header and implementation. Embedding "persistant" in "end-methods"
would not allow the "Java" style and embdeding "persistant" into "end-
class" would not allow the "C++" style. So, my conclussion is that we
should add "persistant" manually.

Rafael



On 1 mayo, 02:22, Doug Hoffman <no.spam> wrote:
> ragof...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > I have found an easy way to make it fully persistant: after all
> > methods have been defined,
> >  you have the full size and start address of the virtual table for
> > each class.
> > So it is easy to add a word (let's say "persistant") that copies this
> > table back to
> > the dictionary,
> > then patch the last class bookeeping fields and release the memory
> > from the heap.
> > This must be done for each class and interface you want to persist. It
> > works,
> > at least for me.
>
> Thank you for that.  I wonder if persistant could simply be made part of
> the end-methods definition?  This would follow the rule of Minimum
> Astonishment when saving an image or creating a turnkey.
>
> -Doug