On 14/07/2010, at 11:25 PM, spir wrote: > To implement this in plain software, objects representing concrete ones > should not talk and listen at all. No message! Object implementations > typically have routines to compose and send a message, and to interpret & act > according to a received message. This whole part of the object mechanics > would not exist in a machine simulation, or not be used. Objects would be > "communicationnally" passive. > Instead, they could just do actions (procs in the pascal sense, commands in > Eiffel slang) that read, put, change, data on their interface. Possible > functions (queries) would only be for internal purpose. The whole interface > would thus be a plain set of attribute data, on one hand, and a few actions > directly launchable by the controller only on the other. > In other words, the controller is the (only) messaging system. > I recently read an often quoted post by Alan Kay using the word "mu" for > what-lies-in-between (my words). The greek root "dia" would perhaps be nice > as well, in this sense. A consequence of the here exposed view is the total > absence of any direct dia between objects. Instead, objects kind of float in > a dia milieu which is the controller itself; which only allows priviledged > communication channels between given objects, and only through its control, > via its "translation" (interpretation). Big-Brother-ware.
Also, this reminds me a heck of a lot of the MVC pattern, no? Cocoa (Objective-C) (OS/X and iOS dev kits) and Rails (a Ruby-based MVC web app dev kit) use this pattern all the time. I've totally missed the boat, right? Julian. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
