On 23-Jun-2001 Artur Bergman wrote:
> I don't see how this is relevant.
This is relevant as it's a more global way of viewing all the little
problems we are bumping into. These object interactions should be
implemented on top of the POE, but we don't have the necessary hooks.
> C) The poe kernel should have no concept of the object layer, multiple
> objet layers must be able to exist. (Just like multiple kernels exist
> today)
No, multiple kernels can't exist in one process nowadays.
>
> D) If the poe kernel doesn't manage to transparantly move messages
> across kernel bounderies the object level will not help, if you don't
> want to reimplment kernel level code in your object layer.
Herm.... herm... moving messages transparently is harder then it looks.
However, your point about the object layer is well taken. What you are
saying is that if a Checkout needs a Cart (again with the e-commerce), POE
shouldn't care. However, if a session goes away, any objects it's using
should also be cleared out. In a perfect world, a smart _stop handler
would be sufficient. However, this requires annoying amounts of house
keeping.
So, let's put all the object relationships elsewhere, and add hooks to POE
that will tell us when objects "change", w/o object cooperation. By
"change", I mean create/delete but also "completed some task".
> Multiple layers GCing the same thing is an error prone approach.
Totaly agreed.
-Philip
