On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:51:50AM +0200, Artur Bergman wrote:
> 01-06-27 07.54, skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED] p� [EMAIL PROTECTED] f�ljande:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, but it isn't relevant to the technical discussion.
It is. Assuming that the global approach is better and will work in the near
future we should keep it in mind and try not to have to change everything
again later when it is about to work.
A good approach with object associations(relations, interactions),
namespaces will lead to some kind of component environment. this helps a lot
for bigger and even small applications and is thus relevant for the
technology it is build upon.
>
> > 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".
>
> Aren't those hooks supposed to be in the object layer, as POE has no concept
> of objects.
Sessions have most of the properties objects have: aatributes, methods,
inheritance, ...
but these monitoring features are probably useful, although quite low level :(
torvald
