ObjectWeb Consortium
Search ObjectWeb Mail Archive: 

Advanced Search - Powered by Google


Mail Archive Home | proactive List | Febuary 2004 Index

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Re: [fractal] comments on the Fractal 2.0 specification draft


forwarded from the fractal mailing list.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: [fractal] comments on the Fractal  2.0 specification draft
Date: Monday 02 February 2004 17:33
From: Eric Bruneton <Eric.Bruneton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Matthieu.Morel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fractal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Matthieu Morel wrote:
> Bonjour a tous,
>
> We are currently working on an implementation of the Fractal model
> for the ProActive library, and here are a few comments about the
> draft specification of Fractal :
>
> 1. new kinds of components
> In our implementation, we have defined a new kind of component :
> parallel components. It is a specialization of the composite
> components, where all enclosed components are of the same type than
> the enclosing component. The bindings are performed - possibly
> automatically - between the enclosing component and the enclosed
> components, linking interfaces of the same type. Maybe this new
> kind of component could be envisaged somewhere in the spec, as an
> extension possibility for example?

I've added a sentence in section 7 about this possibility

> 2. listFc method
> We also agree, as was suggested in a previous message, that the
> listFc method (of the BindingController) has a confusing name, as
> it only returns client interfaces, but we understand it cannot be
> changed easily. Nevertheless, could this particularity be outlined
> in the javadoc?
>
> 3. Attribute control in 4.2.
> should we read " a component that wants an AttributeController
> interface for a read only string attribute foo must provide a sub
> interface of this interface containing the following operation void
> setFoo(string foo)"? I wonder if we shouldn't read getFoo, as the
> attribute is read-only? Same comment for the write-only attribute.

yes, this was an error, I've fixed it

> 4. collective interfaces
> In the specification (6.1), it is written "these interfaces are
> created lazily".
> You impose a constraint on the creation of the collective
> interfaces (lazy instantiation). Couldn't this constraint be
> removed? You could then write "these interfaces *can* be created
> lazily".

I don't think so: all the interfaces of a collection cannot be created
at the same time, since there are an infinite number of such
interfaces. And if all the interfaces are not created at the same
time, they are created "lazily" (not necessarily one by one; you can
create 100 interfaces when the component is created, if you want)

Eric

-------------------------------------------------------


-- 
You receive this message as a subscriber of the fractal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing 
list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:fractal-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For general help: mailto:sympa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws


<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Reply via email to:

Powered by MHonArc.

Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.