At 11:25 24/4/01 +0200, Leo Simons wrote:
>In response to Peter:
>> no idea - I would -1 the Executable name in favour of something else
>> (Animatable or Active???). Still can't think of a good name for
>> Interruptable thou ;)
>
>Component == Passive entity
>Composer/Composable == Active entity
>
>So that's not a real option.
Do you like Animated then ?
>Why was it again that Interruptable was a bad name? Perhaps...
>...scratches head...can't think of anything else either ;/
Interruptable implies either of the following
interface Interruptable {} //ie maarker interface
interface Interruptable
{
void interrupt();
}
because that is a fairly established pattern. Don't know of anything better
though .... may scrounge through saw thesaurus/dictionary.
>> -1 on adding commands at this stage
>
>I agree. Untested code should not go in a beta. But do we move there in
>the future or not?
yep - but I am not sure the proposed design was something desirable yet.
What you called Commands are traditionally called Task/Jobs. Before we
adopt anything we should check out existing research (and there is a lot
about it) aswell as prototype it a bit ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
