Re: Auto selection
- From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:48:21 +0100
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:47:19 GMT, H. S. Lahman wrote:
Note that in event-based interfaces there is no need to send data by
reference. That's because there is no return when an event is generated
since there could be an arbitrary delay between when an event is
generated and when it is consumed by the receiver in asynchronous
communications (e.g., distributed). Thus any values returned by the
receiver are sent back in a separate event data packet where the
sender/receiver roles are reversed.
No. It is because both parties either exactly know or don't care about the
states of each other. This is the source of all problems events have.
Asynchronous nature of events is not an advantage. It is a premise. When
states become too complex to reconstruction on the peers, the architecture
collapses.
P.S. Above I didn't mean developing frameworks capable to generate
messaging in some automated way. In that case events became an
implementation detail, so it would be incorrect to talk about an
"event-based design."
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Auto selection
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Auto selection
- References:
- Auto selection
- From: tailorma_de
- Re: Auto selection
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Auto selection
- From: tailorma_de
- Re: Auto selection
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Auto selection
- Prev by Date: Re: Delta
- Next by Date: Re: Half user config and half client prog implemented
- Previous by thread: Re: Auto selection
- Next by thread: Re: Auto selection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|