Romano Paolo Tenca wrote:
> Hi, Brett
>
> > Thus a big difference for understanding the two is that:
> > * View makes an event "concrete" using objects and it dispatches
> > these events to developer defined functions.
> > *Rugby "eats" the event and instead focusses on providing a
> > pidgeon hole (ticket) for the function results.
> >
> > This means that currently a Rugby developer has to, in effect, re-create the
> > consumed event through polling. I wonder then, if Rugby provided a
> > dispatch system, whether it would be more understandable. Please note,
> > I'm quite unaware of the impact on the Rugby design this idea implies.
>
> Is this what you want?
>
> - client send a request to the server port and ask for an anwer on a given
> port
> - client go to wait on his port
> - server awakes for the client request and makes what the request asked
> - server send an answer to the client port
> - server wait
> - client awakes because receveis the answer
>
> So the "ticket" should be only a client port to wait for.
>
> This is the mode in which async code was executed by ARexx on old Amiga.
That's nice, excempt, imo, above scenario looses capability of getting thru
firewall, because of custom = non 80 port Rugby is supposed to connect back to.
Anyone?
-pekr-
>
>
> ---
> Ciao
> Romano
>
> >
> > What do you think? I'm prepared to be told that I've missed something
> > crucial and valuable :)
> >
> > Brett.
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> > subject, without the quotes.
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
