One of the motivations is to handle some kinds of scaling more gracefully. If
you think about things from a module's point of view, the fewer details it has
to know about resources it needs (and about its environment in general) the
better.
It can be thought of as a next stage in going from
Benoit,
Have you looked at the DCI(Data, Context and Interaction) architecture stuff
from Trygve Reenskaug and James O. Coplien? I don't know if this is the best
link for it, but I'm in transition(or should be):
http://www.artima.com/articles/dci_vision.html
Essentially what gets lost with
Hi Cornelius,
thanks a lot for the links, I will look into these.
Also, thanks for clarifying the issue I was referring to:
Essentially what gets lost with pub-sub and likely any event-based
integrative (EBI) architecture is that interactions are no longer explicit
and less visible, but
Thanks for answering! I hope my question's phrasing didn't seem too
negative (which wasn't my intent at all, even thought I could now see why
it could be understood that way), I was genuinely interested in knowing why
it isn't as it widespread as it would seem to deserve.
Mohamed Samy
On Tue,
On 19 March 2012 18:35, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote:
What motivates? Are we trying to eliminate the overhead of ST-style
message passing? Is publish/subscribe easier to understand? Does it lead to
simpler artifacts? Looser coupling? Does it simplify matters of concurrency?
Ah, I forgot to mention, there are efforts underway to build *descriptions*
of the various conversational patterns people are using. An interesting
recent example is the Multiparty Session Types of Honda, Yoshida, Bejleri
and Carbone: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~yoshida/multiparty/multiparty_full.pdf
On 3/20/12 5:05 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
On 19 March 2012 18:35, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com
mailto:casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote:
What motivates? Are we trying to eliminate the overhead of ST-style
message passing? Is publish/subscribe easier to understand? Does it
