Please excuse the naivety of a newbie.

Could it simply be a stepped morph?

Each (model) class using a process bar could implement a progress accessor message, returning a fraction. The message could be used by any UI framework such as Seaside, VW or Dolphin. If someone needs it, a

progress: #selector

message could be offered.

I don't understand the problem. Let us say we start from the example in the method:

-------------------- 'Now here''s some Real Progress' displayProgressAt: Sensor cursorPoint from: 0 to: 10 during: [:bar | 1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar value: x. (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]]. --------------------

and your "algorithm" here would be:

1 to: 10 do: [:x | "do something here" (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

It is already reasonably decoupled to me, but I take that you want to keep the "algorithm" really prestine and don't want to have "bar value: x" call in there, and completely get rid of anything from "do something here". Is this the case?

There still have to have some way to tell how much percent of work done from the "algorithm" to the progress notification mechanism. In the possible meta approach (which would not be that hard at all), I'd make an instance variable for the object that represents your algorithm state, and the algorithm assigns a value to the instance variable, and the progress bar displayer that is running in a separate thread looks at the variable periodically and update the screen.

However, in this senario, you would have to have an assignment to that variable at "do something here":

----------------- 1 to: 10 do: [:x | progress := x. (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]. -----------------

But is "progress := x" any better than "bar value: x"?

Somebody suggested announcements. So your algorithm would look like:

----------------- 1 to: 10 do: [:x | self announce: (ProgressAnnouncement value: x). (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]. -----------------

And a stepping morph surely does not work. If something was started from a do-it in workspace, next time the morph gets #step message is after the do-it is completed.

The "bar" block could be stored in an instance variable of the algorithm object, and your algorithm may do:

----------------- 1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar ifNotNil: [bar value: x]. (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]. -----------------

This may be just as good as it gets without complicating anything else.

Note that your algorithm may not be a loop. It is totally legitimate to write:

algorithm self doA. bar value: 0.33. self doB. bar value: 0.66. self doC.

where doA, doB, doC are long running computation. So, really generic way to view the progress of something from outside without the knowledge of where to look at and how to interpret these values are not going to fly.

-- Yoshiki

At Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:10:58 -0300, Martin Dias wrote:

Hello

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisiydk@gmail.com wrote:

Hello

I have idea about "meta approach" for implementation of progress tracking of arbitrary method execution.

Progress tracking (progress bar stuff) is really ortogonal functionallity for method execution. And it would be cool
if we have framework for describing tracking of method execution stuff (like it progress).
This framework should run block of code in background and periodically analize state of this background process
stack. And show this state for user. And so this framework allow track execution of arbitrary code.
Analizing state can search running loops in stack for example and show user status of loop counters.

I think it is not very hard to implement. But maybe this approach can't be implemented when code jitted

I like the "meta approach"... but it doesn't look easy to implement for me! Have you seen something like that implemented? or some paper written?

2011/3/30 Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com>

    Hello

    I have a couple of algorithms and I want to show the progress while they run. I played with the progress bar and
    it's okay for my needs.

    The progress bar should be pluggable and decoupled of the algorithms.

    I am writing to you to ask about good designs for my problem. I hope I haven't expressed the problem in a too
    abstract way.

    The design I have in mind is a kind of observer pattern: the serialization algorithm publishes information about
    the run; a specific listener implements the progress bar for that serialization algorithm, interpreting the
    information published.

    Thanks,
    Martin

[2 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]

MISPRINT:

In the last part when says:

"The announcement can also know

algorithm

self doA. self announce: (WorkAnnoucement finished: #doA)."

shouldn't go!

Cheers, Martin

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Martin Dias tinchodias@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki@vpri.org wrote:

...

I don't understand the problem. Let us say we start from the example in the method:

---

'Now here''s some Real Progress' displayProgressAt: Sensor cursorPoint from: 0 to: 10 during: [:bar | 1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar value: x. (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]].

---

and your "algorithm" here would be:

   1 to: 10 do: [:x | "do something here"
                   (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

It is already reasonably decoupled to me, but I take that you want to keep the "algorithm" really prestine and don't want to have "bar value: x" call in there, and completely get rid of anything from "do something here". Is this the case?

There still have to have some way to tell how much percent of work done from the "algorithm" to the progress notification mechanism. In the possible meta approach (which would not be that hard at all), I'd make an instance variable for the object that represents your algorithm state, and the algorithm assigns a value to the instance variable, and the progress bar displayer that is running in a separate thread looks at the variable periodically and update the screen.

However, in this senario, you would have to have an assignment to that variable at "do something here":

---

   1 to: 10 do: [:x | progress := x.
                   (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

---

But is "progress := x" any better than "bar value: x"?

Somebody suggested announcements. So your algorithm would look like:

---

   1 to: 10 do: [:x | self announce: (ProgressAnnouncement value: x).
                   (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

---

And a stepping morph surely does not work. If something was started from a do-it in workspace, next time the morph gets #step message is after the do-it is completed.

The "bar" block could be stored in an instance variable of the algorithm object, and your algorithm may do:

---

   1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar ifNotNil: [bar value: x].
                   (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

---

This may be just as good as it gets without complicating anything else.

Note that your algorithm may not be a loop. It is totally legitimate to write:

algorithm self doA. bar value: 0.33. self doB. bar value: 0.66. self doC.

What you sent makes me think...

I am not convinced of this other solution, but with announcements could be:

algorithm self doA. self announce: (WorkAnnoucement finished: #doA). self doB. self announce: (WorkAnnoucement finished: #doB). self doC. self announce: (WorkAnnoucement finished: #doC).

and the specific observer subscribed to this algorithm knows what percentage corresponds to each selector. And you could easily plug an observer that logs to Transcript.

The announcement can also know

algorithm

   self doA.
   self announce: (WorkAnnoucement finished: #doA).

...

where doA, doB, doC are long running computation. So, really generic way to view the progress of something from outside without the knowledge of where to look at and how to interpret these values are not going to fly.

-- Yoshiki

At Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:10:58 -0300, Martin Dias wrote:

...

Hello

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisiydk@gmail.com

wrote:

...

Hello

I have idea about "meta approach" for implementation of progress

tracking of arbitrary method execution.

...

Progress tracking (progress bar stuff) is really ortogonal

functionallity for method execution. And it would be cool

...

if we have framework for describing tracking of method execution

stuff (like it progress).

...

This framework should run block of code in background and

periodically analize state of this background process

...

stack. And show this state for user. And so this framework allow

track execution of arbitrary code.

...

Analizing state can search running loops in stack for example and

show user status of loop counters.

...

I think it is not very hard to implement. But maybe this approach

can't be implemented when code jitted

...

I like the "meta approach"... but it doesn't look easy to implement for

me!

...

Have you seen something like that implemented? or some paper written?

2011/3/30 Martin Dias <tinchodias@gmail.com>

    Hello

    I have a couple of algorithms and I want to show the progress

while they run. I played with the progress bar and

...

    it's okay for my needs.

    The progress bar should be pluggable and decoupled of the

algorithms.

...

    I am writing to you to ask about good designs for my problem. I

hope I haven't expressed the problem in a too

...

    abstract way.

    The design I have in mind is a kind of observer pattern: the

serialization algorithm publishes information about

...

    the run; a specific listener implements the progress bar for

that serialization algorithm, interpreting the

...

    information published.

    Thanks,
    Martin

[2 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]

2011/4/1 Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki@vpri.org

I don't understand the problem. Let us say we start from the example in the method:

---

'Now here''s some Real Progress' displayProgressAt: Sensor cursorPoint from: 0 to: 10 during: [:bar | 1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar value: x. (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]].

---

and your "algorithm" here would be:

   1 to: 10 do: [:x | "do something here"
                   (Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

It is already reasonably decoupled to me, but I take that you want to keep the "algorithm" really prestine and don't want to have "bar value: x" call in there, and completely get rid of anything from "do something here". Is this the case?

There still have to have some way to tell how much percent of work done from the "algorithm" to the progress notification mechanism. In the possible meta approach (which would not be that hard at all), I'd make an instance variable for the object that represents your algorithm state, and the algorithm assigns a value to the instance variable, and the progress bar displayer that is running in a separate thread looks at the variable periodically and update the screen.

You dont really need to convert some temp to instance variables. You can track some current context temp variable value (context of concrete process which executes algorithm). So you need meta description to specify what peace of code in process context provide progress information

Note that your algorithm may not be a loop. It is totally legitimate

to write:

algorithm self doA. bar value: 0.33. self doB. bar value: 0.66. self doC.

where doA, doB, doC are long running computation. So, really generic way to view the progress of something from outside without the knowledge of where to look at and how to interpret these values are not going to fly.

It's not problem. We have algorithm:

MyClass>>algorithm self doA. self doB. self doC.

And with meta description we can write like:

Progress for: MyClass>>algorithm when: [:desc | desc for: MyClass>>doB value: 0.33. desc for: MyClass>>doC value: 0.66 ]

And doA/B/C can doing some inner loops which we can track with extra meta descriptions.

At Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:33:36 +0400, Denis Kudriashov wrote:

2011/4/1 Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki@vpri.org

 I don't understand the problem.  Let us say we start from the
example in the method:

--------------------
'Now here''s some Real Progress'
displayProgressAt: Sensor cursorPoint
from: 0 to: 10
during: [:bar |
1 to: 10 do: [:x | bar value: x.
(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait]].
--------------------

and your "algorithm" here would be:

1 to: 10 do: [:x | "do something here"
(Delay forMilliseconds: 500) wait].

It is already reasonably decoupled to me, but I take that you want to
keep the "algorithm" really prestine and don't want to have "bar
value: x" call in there, and completely get rid of anything from "do
something here". Is this the case?

There still have to have some way to tell how much percent of work
done from the "algorithm" to the progress notification mechanism. In
the possible meta approach (which would not be that hard at all), I'd
make an instance variable for the object that represents your
algorithm state, and the algorithm assigns a value to the instance
variable, and the progress bar displayer that is running in a separate
thread looks at the variable periodically and update the screen.

You dont really need to convert some temp to instance variables. You can track some current context temp variable value (context of concrete process which executes algorithm). So you need meta description to specify what peace of code in process context provide progress information

Well, as Bert wrote, it is somewhat like spyOn: (and as I wrote it is not that hard) to support one kind of it, but I was talking more about the actual benefit of doing it in that way. (Except to keep the "algorithm" absolutely pristine and you can spend time to write the meta description for each and every different kind of algorithms (say, one may want to use the product of temp vars "x" and "y"). Or, if you don't mind exposing the internal of the "algorithm", which happened to be implemented as the sequence of doA, doB, and doC but may change in the future.

Note that your algorithm may not be a loop. It is totally legitimate
to write:

algorithm
self doA.
bar value: 0.33.
self doB.
bar value: 0.66.
self doC.

where doA, doB, doC are long running computation. So, really generic
way to view the progress of something from outside without the
knowledge of where to look at and how to interpret these values are
not going to fly.

It's not problem. We have algorithm:

MyClass>>algorithm self doA. self doB. self doC.

And with meta description we can write like:

Progress for: MyClass>>algorithm when: [:desc | desc for: MyClass>>doB value: 0.33. desc for: MyClass>>doC value: 0.66 ]

And doA/B/C can doing some inner loops which we can track with extra meta descriptions.

You'd want to specify the sampling rate (as it has to work the chain of contexts to find where it is often), make sure the meta description is in sync, etc.

-- Yoshiki