On 4/9/08, Robert L. Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out, Sean. Would it be possible for you to
> submit a patch for it? I don't have lispworks, and am therefore not
> capable of developing for it. Apparently you do...this is bound to be
> the kind of things that ot
On 4/7/08, Jens Teich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lispworks 5.1
> Mac OS X 10.5
> ** Error in (DEFCLASS ELEPHANT:BTREE-INDEX):
> Invalid allocation type INSTANCE for slot-definition-allocation
There seems to have been a MOP conformance fix with Lispworks 5.1 which causes
the (setf slot-defi
On 4/4/08, Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, premature optimization often causes more trouble than it's worth.
> The easiest thing to do to get going is to index both slots and say:
>
> (intersection (get-instances-by-range 'event 'date )
> (get-instances-by-value 'e
> I'm really just curious about using
> 2 btree indices together without requiring the creation of a 3rd.
Of course I could be working against elephant while trying to do all of this.
So here is what I am trying to achieve, any pointers would be great.
Given the following code.
>>
(defpackage
On 4/4/08, Alex Mizrahi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (defclass test-event ()
> ((date :accessor date-of :initform (now) :index t) ...
> and it will create indices for you automatically.
Yes, although this is just an example of what I'm trying to achieve
and isn't exactly what i'm doing. I'm re
On 4/3/08, Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you just want the simple union, an ordered union by some criteria or do
> you mean intersection? Perhaps an example would help us help you!
ack, intersection, not union, that'll teach me to post and run.
as an example given the following cla
Hi All,
I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction here.
Given 2 secondary indices on an indexed btree is it at all possible to
create/use a derived index which is the union of the 2 created indices
without requiring the explicit creation of a 3rd index
or am i barking up the wr
On Jan 11, 2008 4:34 PM, Sean Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I appreciate you providing this patch. However, it would be even better
> > if this patch were accompanied with tests, or modifications to the
> > existing test suite, which exercise, demonstrate, and test
On Jan 11, 2008 3:32 PM, Robert L. Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you Sean.
>
> I don't feel I have enough experience to really comment on this idea, so
> I will assume that it is a good one.
>
> I appreciate you providing this patch. However, it would be even better
> if this patch were
Hi all,
I would like to propose the following adjustment to the way that
key-forms for btree indexes are
converted into functions. Currently this is done by looking up the
fdefinition of the symbol provided
or calling compile nil on the form. I would like to amend this to
also allow function for
On Jan 8, 2008 7:33 PM, Alex Mizrahi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so i'm thinking about patching this recreation stuff this way:
>
> ;;
> ;; RECREATING A PERSISTENT INSTANCE
> ;;
>
> (defmethod recreate-instance-using-class ((class standard-class) &rest
> initargs &key &allow-other-keys)
> "recre
On Jan 8, 2008 8:35 PM, Sean Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a different note, It may be worth requiring that
> perstistent-metaclasses have persistent-object on their class-precedence-list
> although that is bound to have implications that I haven't thought of.
Sorr
On Jan 8, 2008 7:38 PM, Robert L. Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you very much, Sean. I suggest you work with Henrik and Alex and
> I on this as well (possibly off-line, outside of this forum.)
Thanks, I'll try and put together an initial proposal for Henrik, Alex
and I to start with.
>
On Jan 8, 2008 3:31 PM, Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I think we definitely need to fix this. Quite a few people
> have run into the problem that we're violating the CLOS contract on
> make-instance and that we should not use the same CLOS calling path
> for re-initialization th
Hi all,
I'm sorry to hear that my patch caused so many issues with postmodern
and I'm quite keen to investigate the cause of this. I'll be
installing setting up the postmodern backend and seeing if I can track
down the causes of these problems.
As to where to go from here I do agree with robert o
AFAIK this goes for SBCL, CMUCL, Lispworks and ACL.
On 12/27/07, Evrim Ulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SBCL generic function dispatcher is faster than function + typecase.
>
> evrim.
> ___
> elephant-devel site list
> elephant-devel@common-lisp.net
> ht
rats, Unfortunately I use the BDB backend and had not tested this with
postmodern.
After quick investigation my guess is that this has had adverse
effects regarding objects which have specialized intialize-instance
methods which are required to run an deserialization.
Unfortunately I'm leaving to
Hi all,
here's a small patch to swap the load order of classindex-utils.lisp
and pset.lisp.
This is required as Lispworks attempts to call set-db-synch when
loading the pset fasl
which causes it to fall over.
cheers,
sean
New patches:
[Ensure set-db-synch is defined before pset is loaded
[E
On Dec 12, 2007 4:25 PM, Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might trace the various generic functions
> to see the difference in behavior during new object creation and
> deserialization as a start if you want to figure this out yourself.
Right, after a couple of breakpoints and a little
Hi all,
I've currently run into a problem using Elephant 0.9.1 and Lispworks
5.0.2 with the bdb backend.
I have a user class on which I perform various initializations using
initialize-instance, unfortunately
my initialize instance method is being called when the instance is
deserialised.
No
20 matches
Mail list logo
