On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Giacomo Pati wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Marc Portier wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Christian Haul wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 06.Dec.2002 -- 04:07 PM, Marc Portier wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Giacomo, Sylvain,
> >>>>
> >>>>I see my remark wasn't that stupid after all (taking as an
> >>>>argument the fact the statistic unlikeliness of having exact
> >>>>equal idiots) Sorry, for not earlier reading deeper down the
> >>>>thread though...
> >>>>
> >>>>only I'm not ready to give in yet...
> >>>>
> >>>>is making a continuation really atomicly linked to sending a
> >>>>page? Your argumentation makes me see that:
> >>>>Rather then 2 there are 3 concerns covered in the sendPageAnd...
> >>>>I guess it's more like
> >>>>makeAContinuationRef_And_UseItToSendPage_And_SafeStateForNextRequest
> >>>>:-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The problem is that you need to have something to place on the page
> >>>that links to the continuation id. Thus you need to have your
> >>>continuation before sending the page. Hence suspending and sending is
> >>>one atomic operation.
> >>>
> >>> Chris.
> >>
> >>Now I see it: when the page is sent the links are available to be
> >>clicked upon and thus the 'state' should be there.
> >>
> >>I only considered the creation part ATM (and there I argumented
> >>that for creating the URI-links you don't need to save the state
> >>yet)
> >>
> >>Think I got it now, so we are back to the straightforward naming
> >>discussion... thinking back of my highschool-basic-time this
> >>kinda boils down to finding the equivalent of
> >>
> >> 0 CLS
> >>10 PRINT "This is only out:"
> >>20 INPUT "This prompt asks you to enter something:" , answer
> >>
> >>which would make me advocate
> >>
> >>for the output only:
> >> sendPage("name-o-page") or even
> >> printPage(...) or
> >> echoPage(...)
> >>
> >>for the input kind of page
> >> getFormInput("name-o-form") or
> >> getFormReply(...)
> >
> >
> > And thus we are back to my lastly proposed method names:
> >
> > sendPage( page ) // without waiting
> >
> > getAnswerFor( page )
> > or
> > getReplyFor( page )
>
> Hmmm, what happens if I do
>
> sendPage("foo")
> getAnswerFor("bar")
The same as if you do
sendPageWithoutWait("foo")
sendPageAndWait("bar")
>
> ???
>
> I think that sendPageAndWait() *is* atomic once you get it. Separating
> the two doesn't sound like SoC anymore if you can mess up like above, it
> becomes FoC (fragmentation of concerns) which is bad
I've already seen (thanks to Sylvain IIRC) that we cannot separate sending
and waiting. My suggetion was for the names of the respective functions.
Giacomo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
