On 22-Jun-2001 Rocco Caputo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 09:17:19AM -0400, Matt Cashner wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Rocco Caputo wrote:
>>
>> > fruitless without Uri's blessing.
>>
>> sure it would be. we'd have the niftiness of stem (which does do some
>> cool stuff) in poe. blessings or not, that's a pretty good goal.
> Philip seems to be taking a different approach, which has some
> plusses. Write an object system for poe, and design stem
> compatibility into it. That smooths over the scars between paradigms
> and reduces the amount of project tracking needed. If he's careful,
> his object system will cooperate with the one I prototyped in 1998.
I think we are conflating 3 things :
- The object model you prototyped back in 1998
- The object interactions Torvald is talking about
- JAAS I'm currently working on
It is of course very desirable that all 3 things work together. I don't
fully grok Rocco's object model.
I have a tendency to design with code. Until you actually use something
in code, you don't really know if it's interface is usable. The README in
IKC says this also. IKC was originally passing events between processes.
However, I rapidly discovered the need for explicit object interactions
such as Torvald pointed out. Publish/subscribe is one way such
interaction. David H-D also ran into this problem.
My current "object model", if you will, is borrowed from Stem. Object
methods are plain Perl code. Object construction is controled via a
Config object and done in a Factory. (Rocco's object model, I believe,
furthur makes object methods changable, sort of like Class::Classless.)
Furthurmore, objects can grouped into a context, which is another way of
saying "instance of an application".
I'm currently kludging around the object interactions. If/when they come
about, IKC could be very much streamlined.
As always, I plan to throw one away. I do hope that retrofitting object
interactions and the object model onto my system won't be difficult.
-Philip
