Has anyone done any work regarding debugging of these kinds of
architectures? I imagine that large systems could break in pretty subtle
and elusive ways (slightly mismatched expectations between subscribers
and publishers; also, the asynchrony could be both a bug and a feature).
I think that
Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:35 PM
Subject: [fonc] Publish/subscribe vs. send
Here's the real naive question...
I'm fuzzy about why objects should receive messages but not send them. I think
I can see
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
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
Here's the real naive question...
I'm fuzzy about why objects should receive messages but not send them. I think
I can see the mechanics of how it might work, I just don't grok why it's
important.
What motivates? Are we trying to eliminate the overhead of ST-style message
passing? Is
Hi Casey,
the decoupling of the event emitters and receivers is what I find the most
interesting in a pub/sub model. The publisher raises an event (in its
semantic domain) and does not know what subscribers are going to receive it
or what they're going to do with it. One of the advantage of this
Various motivations include looser coupling, extensibility,
resilience. Also, pub/sub allows modeling frameworks as regular objects.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Casey Ransberger
casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's the real naive question...
I'm fuzzy about why objects should receive
10 matches
Mail list logo
