Re: ordering events in a swarm ....

[Marcus G. Daniels]

>>>>> "XH" == xueyue  <address@hidden> writes:

XH> But I was trying a case similar to following following situation: when

- start
{
  count = 0;
  schedule = [Schedule create: globalZone];
  [self schedule: 3];
  [[schedule activateIn: nil] run];
  return self;
}
 
XH> becomes 

- start
{
  count = 0;
  schedule = [Schedule create: globalZone];
  [self schedule: 3];
   [[schedule activateIn: nil] run];
   [schedule at: 7 createActionTo: objecta message: M(actiona)];
   [schedule at: 5 createActionTo: objectb message: M(actionb)];
  // ...more new schedule for 'schedule' object
  // ... 
   return self;
}

XH> where objecta and objectb are two different objects.
XH> I used your code test this idea. The modified code can be 
XH> compiled, but actiona, actionb, ..., are not excuted. This was what I
XH> got when I ran my own code. 

Besides Paul's reasonable concern about objecta and objectb being
instantiated at the time of the call to at:createActionTo:message:,
one thing that is clearly wrong with this code is that the additions
at 7 and 5 occur after [[schedule activateIn: nil] run].  If you have
the goal of revisting that whole pattern of behavior (sans autodrops),
you could again call [[schedule activateIn: nil] run] with the new
additions.  Otherwise, they will just sit uselessly in the Schedule 
map datastructure.

                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.