Re: Asynchronous timers (without a run loop)
Re: Asynchronous timers (without a run loop)
- Subject: Re: Asynchronous timers (without a run loop)
- From: "Påhl Melin" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:03:17 +0100
2008/12/4 David Springer <email@hidden>:
> I don't mean to sound patronizing, but unless I have missed some fundamental
> premise, didn't you just re-invent DO? Maybe the right way to port this
> framework is to make your API a thin wrapper on top of Obj-C messages, and
> your set up a wrapper on top of DO setup. Just a thought.
No problem. It's a valid question. When I first designed the framework
on Dotnet, I did it partly because I wasn't satisfied with the
Remoting framework (which is Dotnet's version of Distributed Objects).
In the end I suppose it's mainly a matter of taste, but I much prefer
the flexibility you get with message passing framework, rather than a
distributed object framework. In my opinion it's more encouraging to
use multithreading if it's easy to do ad-hoc messaging between threads
and processes without having to specify a new class for each
communication. And my messaging framework also includes some other
nice features I wouldn't get with DO.
/ Påhl
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden