Thomas, Thanks for your feedback. We appreciate it. Actually the messaging design pattern deals with this type of messaging. The messaging model is not limited to a specific modality of messaging (sync, async fire-and-forget, etc). You raise a good point since we probably need to make it more clear in the document. We'll address it shortly. I'll forward a revised version of the paper.
Feel free to send any additional comments/concerns that you may have. Regards, Ed --- On Tue, 4/27/10, Thomas Mercer-Hursh, Ph.D. <[email protected]> wrote: From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh, Ph.D. <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [gang-of-4-patterns] [patterns-discussion] Messaging Design Pattern and transparent access to distributed components To: "phillip henry" <[email protected]> Cc: "Messaging Design Pattern" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 10:59 PM The big flaw I see here, right off the top, is the assumption that messages always have replies. There are many examples of fire-and-forget messaging. -- ====================================================================== Consulting in Architecture-Driven Modernization and Transformation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Mercer-Hursh, Ph.D. email: [email protected] Computing Integrity, Inc. voice: 510-233-5400 60 Belvedere Avenue fax: 510-233-5446 Point Richmond, CA 94801-4023 url: http://www.cintegrity.com ======================================================================
_______________________________________________ telecom-patterns mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/telecom-patterns
