Ralph, I appreciate the feedback. I plan to update the draft and add detailed information comparing the design pattern with other models and technologies (similarities, differences, advantages, disadvantages, implementation considerations, etc).
Regards, Al --- On Sun, 4/17/11, Ralph Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Ralph Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [gang-of-4-patterns] Live or Animated Object Design Pattern To: "Messaging Design Pattern" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 9:42 AM It seems to me to be the same thing as the actor model, but you don't mention it. There are a variety of actor languages out there, including some built on the JVM. Often this happens through libraries rather than through compilers. Erlang is a good example of a hard-core actor language. Scala has a variety of libraries that support actors. One of the more recent and more popular is Akka. People have been writing about this for a few decades and so I was surprised not to see any references to it. -Ralph Johnson On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Messaging Design Pattern <[email protected]> wrote: Dear List members, Please find enclosed a link to a draft discussing the Live or Animated object design pattern: http://java.net/projects/jt/downloads/download/Papers/MDPAnimated.pdf Any feedback would be appreciated. This draft also includes additional information about asynchronous concerns, best practices and implementation considerations. Regards, Al Live or Animated object design pattern Intent: This design pattern encapsulates component functionality, processing (threading) mechanism and the messaging functionality required to provide the component with independent behavior (a “live of its own” so to speak). This also means that the component uses its own independent processing mechanism or thread of execution. This design pattern improves decoupling, encapsulation and scalability while at the same time reducing complexity and overall implementation cost. Component functionality, processing/treading mechanism and messaging mechanism are decoupled entities, independent of one another. MDP messaging [2] allows the interchange of information (i.e. messages) between the animated component and other components or applications. Although decoupled and independent of one another, processing/threading mechanism and component functionality are completely encapsulated within a single entity: live or animated object. Motivation: The implementation of traditional multithreaded applications is a complex undertaking which usually becomes costly, time consuming and prone to error. Defects related to are often encountered (thread management, synchronization, race conditions, deadlocks, etc). These software defects are difficult to avoid, reproduce and isolate. Large multithreaded applications complicate the problem even further. The degree of complexity and risk considerably worsens as the number of threads and their interactions increases. Object oriented applications consist of a collection of components that interact with each other. In reality, some of these components should be modeled as live or animated components: They exhibit independent behavior, a “life of their own”...... _______________________________________________ gang-of-4-patterns mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gang-of-4-patterns
_______________________________________________ telecom-patterns mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/telecom-patterns
