On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 13:39 Europe/Rome, Geoff Howard wrote:
Bruno Dumon wrote:On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 17:02, Geoff Howard wrote:
...
Yep. I meant that the connection tag would become provide:I also considered recording the wire-id instead of the uri for connections between blocks - what are the arguments for each?
<connection> was out of the blue using the wiring metaphore. Other options? Free association: connect, attach, solder, wire, use ...
Avalon Phoenix uses the words "assembly" and "provide" instead of "wiring" and "connection", which I quite like (I mean the assembly & provide).
I don't quite see where these terms would be used - can you explain a little more? Maybe a proposed set of changes to the example >>> above?
<provide
name="external-skin">cob:yetanothercompany.com/skins/fancy/1.2.2</ provide>
I think of the "provide" verb as applying more the the block.xml configuration (which isn't yet on the table).
agreed. in fact, I was thinking of "exposes", but "provides" is good too.
The wiring.xml describes not what a block provides, but which services provided by other blocks plug in to its named dependencies.
yes, I still believe that "wiring" is a much better name for this.
OTOH, I guess the block manager could be seen as "providing" the solution to the named dependency...
no, a "block" implements a "behavior" to "provide" a service and is "connected" to the requiring "block" by the "wiring" created by the user deploying the "block" thru the "block manager".
the block provides, the block manager connects.
the collection of connections is called "the block wiring".
Note: the above is terminology taken from the electronic metaphore of wiring and solding chips on a board, where a socket is the block behavior (the contract) and the chip that goes into the socket is the implementation.
Historical note: the above was the reasoning from where got the very first ideas for Avalon. [Federico and I were working on something we called JLab, which should have been a mix between JavaStudio and LabView, but we never went anywhere (not surprising since our once-demo-scene-related-group is called "Beta Version Productions" and we never finish anything we start ;-)
[but software is never finished anyway, so what?]
And the wiring.xml would be called assembly.xml OTOH, I'm meanwhile becoming accustomed to the wiring and connection terms, so let's leave it as wiring and connection for now.
Ok, sounds good.
great
-- Stefano.
