Peter Donald wrote:
>
> 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 ?
Animated (to me) connotates the whole kit and kaboodle of something that
is fully state managed by the kernel. That means start, stop, pause,
resume, or any other state.
> >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.
That's a tough one.
> >> -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 ;)
Agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
