On 27-Jun-2001 Rocco Caputo wrote:
> Of course it adds overhead. The alternative is a monolithic system
> without clearly defined and separated subsystems. That would suck.
> There would be only one kind of Kernel, and only one sort of Session,
> and only one object layer. They would all be inextricably intertwined
> and a huge mess to maintain.
I've just taken a longish walk and thought a bit. What I realised is
that "Yes, People think Sessions are Objects". Sessions can do
inheritance (via object_states and package_states). Each session can have
instance variables (via $heap). At the very least, POE::Components look
very much like Objects.
Let's try to break this association.
My view of the object layer is that each Object would have a Session
associated with it that would handle poe-related stuff. I think you see
it as one Session dealing with all the Objects. Objects have to interact
with the POE kernel (aka call back to POE kernel).
Let me twiddle some code here.
> Your corollary is false. Poe events are a low level transport for
> high level object messages.
I disagree. When you start using POE events to transport messages, you
run into all the problems we've been talking about and the need for
monitoring, which you take exception to.
-Philip
