Appreciate any clarification on the following - am converting my
previously non -service embedded functions to Cairngorm. Command +
Delegate works by the responder calling "result" or "fauLt" in
Command. Responder is added to Service, right? So in my banal example
of "add 1 + 1", where does the responder come from that calls result()
in Command?
My typical Delegate would be
public function signon( signonAttempt:LoginVO ):void
{
var call:Object = service.signon(signonAttempt) ;
call.addResponder( responder );
}
Who does the "1+1"?. I have got pretty good at learning from example
code - I find it very interesting that all examples of Cairngorm show
a call to the backend - there are no examples of using Cairngorm to
execute any other kind of function e.g. my real need to manipulate a
SO on the local client - which I do embedded but want to keep to a
standard (Cairngorm). As always, TIA,
Mic.
--- In [email protected], "Douglas Knudsen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> certainly use the pattern for reading from a SO. Your Command should be
> clueless if its a SO or RPC call, the Delegate does that job.
Consider the
> case where you switch from storage in your SO to say S3 or a big
phat Oracle
> DB. You only need change your delegate. You can also have a
Command that
> mutates your Model in some way that doesn't need any Delegate or
Responder.
>
> Now, if you just want to add 1 + 1, try Googling on 'AbacusCommand'
hehe!
>
> DK
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:55 AM, chigwell23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jim. With the Delegate and Responder stuff, it seems on the
> > surface that Cairngorm is predisposed to service/backend communication
> > solutions. Taking the example of a function that at the moment is
> > reading Shared object data - how would this be Cairngormed? When the
> > Command code is reached, does one just stay there and run the SO code?
> > i.e. does one move all the function code into a Command function for
> > non-service oriented activity? Forget Delegates and Responders?
> >
> > Really interested in what people think here, as the majority of
> > Cairngorm examples I have seen, have used Cairngorm events for the
> > service-oriented stuff, but have "regressed" to embedded functions for
> > the rest.
> >
> > I would really like someone to show me how "add 1+ 1" is Cairngormed
> > .... being serious here! Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Mic.
> >
> > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jim
> > Hayes" <jim@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't see how you'd benefit from sidestepping the cairngorm event
> > -> command way of working in this case.
> > > If you use a service to get the IP address then it's asynchronous,
> > and has a few possible outcomes.
> > > I can't see why you wouldn't want to wait for it's "got one of those
> > results or an error" event and then deal with the outcome.
> > > Which is where the cairngorm way of doing things is really helpful.
> > >
> > > If it's synchronous (like opening a database or prefs file in AIR,
> > say), then you could maybe skip cairngorm (I do, and get away with it,
> > mostly).
> > > In which case I can't see the benefit of thinking of (or packaging )
> > it as a cairngorm command. I'd rather put it somewhere else and know
> > it was a different thing.
> > >
> > > But what I've found most of the time is that if you're going to do a
> > cairngorm app then it's really worth going with the flow and doing
> > pretty well everything that way,
> > > even if it does mean writing 3 classes when you could get away with
> > a local method.
> > > Generally, when I've made short cuts like that it's come back and
> > bitten me on the arse.
> > > I do still do it when I'm in experimental/creative or lazy mode, but
> > now I'll try to refactor it into the cairngorm way sooner rather than
> > later.
> > > Which is sometimes a bit boring, but there you go.
> > >
> > > Hope that makes (at least some) sense!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> on
> > behalf of chigwell23
> > > Sent: Thu 01/05/2008 22:51
> > > To: [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [flexcoders] Cairngorm - always event, always command?
> > >
> > > pseudocode:
> > >
> > > creationComplete
> > > var ipAddress:String
> > > ipAddress = getUserIP()
> > >
> > >
> > > function getuserIP():String{
> > >
> > > // use Services to go out to ColdFusion which can tell me user IP
> > > return IP
> > > }
> > >
> > > But Cairngorm encapsulates "actions" into commands which are
driven by
> > > an event and a delegate. So how does it handle examples like the one
> > > above? Should I create a getIP event, which is dispatched from
> > > creationComplete, and use the standard command/delegate path. If the
> > > event is not necessary, and it still makes sense to put the "action"
> > > in a command, how would that command get activated without the
> > > Cairngorm event process? I know what I mean <grin>. TIA,
> > >
> > > Mic.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > This communication is from Primal Pictures Ltd., a company
> > registered in England and Wales with registration No. 02622298 and
> > registered office: 4th Floor, Tennyson House, 159-165 Great Portland
> > Street, London, W1W 5PA, UK. VAT registration No. 648874577.
> > >
> > > This e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read,
> > copied and used only by the intended recipient. If you have received
> > it in error, please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail or
> > by telephoning +44(0)20 7637 1010. Please then delete the e-mail and
> > do not disclose its contents to any person.
> > > This email has been scanned for Primal Pictures by the MessageLabs
> > Email Security System.
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Knudsen
> http://www.cubicleman.com
> this is my signature, like it?
>
