Ralph,
I wouldn't mind changing the name for a more appropriate one. I'm mainly concerned about the idea itself and its application. I'm interested in having it applied to a broader set of applications and real-world problems (Especially in mainstream technologies). I have to think about the name. I would have reservation in terms of using the term "Actors" for several reasons: a) It may hinder their broad application since the name actors is associated with several criticisms and shortcomings (perception), many of which I have documented as part of the draft (6+ pages). The proposed pattern does not share these shortcomings. As discussed in the draft, the Actor model was introduced in the 70's. A lot of software technology advances have come to pass since that time, specifically in the areas of Object Orientated methodologies, design patterns, distributed technologies, internet, web services, and software modeling. b) I agree that the proposed pattern and the Actor model make use of Asynchronous messaging. On the other hand, there are other systems and models that deal with Asynchronous messaging. Also, the proposed pattern is not limited to asynchronous messaging (as opposed to the pure Actor model). The pattern and the Actor model have many differences: model, abstractions, primitives, assumptions, messaging types, implementation, results (6+ pages). I hope the draft accurately reflects all the differences. It may be confusing to use the same name when there are so many differences. As I mentioned earlier, the pattern does not share the shortcomings associated with the Actor model. By the way, because of size limitations, I'll probably have to create an Appendix that includes the detailed comparison. Regards, Al --- On Sat, 5/7/11, Ralph Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Ralph Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [gang-of-4-patterns] Live or Animated Object Design Pattern To: "Messaging Design Pattern" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 6:21 PM google "Java actors". There are actor systems for Groovy, Scala, as well as normal Java. Actors might be an old idea from the 70s, but they are finally becoming popular and are implemented in many systems. And the ideas in actors are the same as in your pattern. It is a good idea but a bad name. The right name is 'actor' because that is the name that everybody else is using. It is too late to call them "live objects". -Ralph
_______________________________________________ patterns-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
