patterns-discussion AT lists.siebelschool.illinois.edu
Subject: General talk about software patterns
List archive
Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA)
Chronological Thread
- From: Al Boldi <a1426z AT gawab.com>
- To: Messaging Design Pattern <dsheppard2k AT yahoo.com>
- Cc: patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
- Subject: Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA)
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:55:49 +0300
- List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
- List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>
Messaging Design Pattern wrote:
> 1) No. Observer and messaging are two separate design patterns (concepts).
Separate concepts yes, but both could conceivably be used to implement the
same project. When would we prefer the ODP over the MDP and vice/versa.
The reason I am questioning is that I see many developers picking the wrong
pattern for their implementation rendering the result a failure. What we
need are clear instructions of when the MDP is applicable and when it is not.
> In terms of performance and resource usage, MDP is very light and
> efficient. Keep in mind that messaging (core functionality) can be
> implemented with a single messaging interface:
>
> public interface JtInterface {
> /**
> * Jt messaging interface used for the implementation
> * of the messaging design pattern.
> * Process an input message and return a reply (output message)
> */
>
> Object processMessage (Object message);
> }
Yes, both the interface and the concept itself look simple, yet when trying
to
implement this interface it quickly mushrooms into a multi-threaded endeavor.
What is needed is more detail about the design pattern specifics, i.e.
associated sub-patterns needed to guide the developer to a successful
implementation.
Thanks!
--
Al
- [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Al Boldi, 12/11/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/12/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Al Boldi, 12/13/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Ralph Johnson, 12/14/2010
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/13/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/14/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/14/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Christian Köppe, 12/15/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/16/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/16/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/19/2010
- Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions (was: Messaging Design Patterns (MDP) reusability and QA), Messaging Design Pattern, 12/12/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.