Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

patterns-discussion - Re: [patterns-discussion] Fw: RE: MDP feasibility questions (Semantic Coupling)

patterns-discussion AT lists.siebelschool.illinois.edu

Subject: General talk about software patterns

List archive

Re: [patterns-discussion] Fw: RE: MDP feasibility questions (Semantic Coupling)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Al Boldi <a1426z AT gawab.com>
  • To: phillip henry <ph1ll1phenry AT yahoo.com>, Messaging Design Pattern <dsheppard2k AT yahoo.com>
  • Cc: patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
  • Subject: Re: [patterns-discussion] Fw: RE: MDP feasibility questions (Semantic Coupling)
  • Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:24:36 +0300
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
  • List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>

phillip henry wrote:
> With 5000 API methods, I know at compile time if a method is there - say,
> some other developer says he is adding setAnnouncedDateOnTranche(date,
> trancheId).
>
> With your suggestion, I do not know at compile time if the other developer
> has implemented this functionality. With an explicit API method, there is
> far less ambiguity and it's clear what this method is trying to do.
>
> I also look forward to your reply regarding the 5000 if/else blocks.

Not only 5000 if/else blocks, but also additional overhead for message
queuing. So, MDP seems to definitely increase the server workload at first
sight, but at the same time one could take advantage of this additional
infrastructure to offer additional functionality like distributed processing.

As such, I can only envisage MDP to be feasible in large systems that seek to
not only offer loose coupling for the sake of interoperatability, but also
want to construct a system that allows the management of messages.


Thanks!

--
Al





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page