Hi Phill,
If your view is accurate, we are in agreement then. So far we are talking about the messaging concept/abstraction. I never mentioned a "messaging model". I believe that if we get the messaging concept we'll be able to find suitable models/implementations. The particular point in discussion was whether or not messaging needs to be part of the software model:
Realistic Software Model:
"- Software applications are designed to model the real world.
- Therefore software models should be as close to reality as possible
(realistic model) in order to achieve an accurate portrait. The more
realistic the model is, the better off your application will be.
- Messaging is part of the real work. Actually it is everywhere.
Conclusion: Therefore messaging must be part of the model in order
to achieve a accurate/complete model. BTW, there are other concepts
that are also part of reality ( gravity, forces, etc). Obviously You
might to include this concepts depending on your application."
As I mentioned there are several potential implementations of messaging. I can see several potential models for the messaging concept/abstraction. It is true that the papers cover implementations aspects. On the other hand, we haven't gotten there yet. In my view they are not as critical as understanding the idea. We were always talking about drawbacks of the messaging, gravity and force as concepts. Not sure we can find them. Obviously this has an impact on MDP (messaging as a pattern). The concept and the pattern are linked. Messaging is about information exchange. (as a concept) It is also efficient, effective, versatile, simple, robust, ubiquitous, scalable, etc. Information cannot "travel" without messaging.
Please let's try to stay within the context/scope of the papers so we keep the discussion grounded. Send specific comments/questions based on their content. Feel free to send other topics directly to the email
address.
I plan to cover the implementation considerations in the near future. Hopefully we'll have the chance to debate the merits/drawbacks in terms of MDP implementation.
Regards,
--- On Tue, 12/28/10, phillip henry <ph1ll1phenry AT yahoo.com> wrote:
From: phillip henry <ph1ll1phenry AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [patterns-discussion] MDP feasibility questions
To: "Messaging Design Pattern" <dsheppard2k AT yahoo.com>, "Christian Köppe" <christian.koppe AT hu.nl>
Cc: "patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu" <patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 11:21 AM
Hi,
Al,
Just another note.
When you say: "[f]or instance I'm not sure what the drawbacks of gravity or force are" I don't think anybody is disagreeing.
Physicists do not debate the drawbacks of gravity. They do, however, debate the drawbacks of our different *models* of gravity.
The Newtonian theory of gravitation describes it as a force whose
magnitude is subject to an inverse square law. Einstein's theories
superseded Newtons, describing gravitation in a radically different
way: not so much a force as objects following geodesics in spacetime.
Both give similar results in non-extreme circumstances. And even though
we prefer Einstein's theory to Newton's, Newton's is perfectly adequate
for most applications - including sending man to the moon.
In short, in physics we too build models, debate their merits and chose
the one that is applicable to the problem we are trying to solve.
But nobody is saying that they are without drawbacks.
Regards,
Phill
|
|
