Skip to main content

Recursion Bites with Complex Nevow Pages

There is a recently discovered issue with Nevow's Athena LivePages. LiveFragment nesting fails if the nesting gets too deep, due to repeated cloning of the contexts, including the full chain of parents back to the root of the document. This was hitting the call depth limits in some tests idnar was working on. I found this to be a little worrysome, as my designs for the current project included some relatively deep nesting of LiveFragments; at least, as deep as the tests that found the error. Eventually, contexts are to be removed from nevow entirely, as I understand it, but this is far down the road. A temporary solution was needed, besides just not using so much nesting. I decided that instead of redesigning the system I was building, I would fix the bug, and I have. I posted Trac Ticket #602 along with a patch that fixes it.

Recursion is a very useful software construct, but sometimes it can bite you in the end when you don't even expect it to. There is usually a way around it, but I do wish there was a more explicit way in some language to express a construct meant to avoid recursion. All I had to do was traverse up the parent attributes and create a list of all the parents, in order. I took each of these, and if the clone method was the same as our own, so we know for sure how it works, I just manually clone it and make it the parent of the clone of its original child. This way, no recursion is ever needed between parents being cloned, unless a different context class is being used, which also redefines the clone method. If that becomes a problem, it should be fixable as easily.

This may seem a little hackish, but its a common enough issue that I am really surprised there has never been a really good recursion alternative in any language. I'm not sure what form this would take, but in places it would be nice to say "this works like recursion, but without recursing".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…