Ah, I forgot to mention, there are efforts underway to build *descriptions* of the various conversational patterns people are using. An interesting recent example is the Multiparty Session Types of Honda, Yoshida, Bejleri and Carbone: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~yoshida/multiparty/multiparty_full.pdf
A multiparty session type describes the form of an N-way conversation, and can be projected out into a collection of 2-way subconversations between the individual participants. Cheers, Tony On 20 March 2012 20:05, Tony Garnock-Jones <tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 19 March 2012 18:35, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What motivates? Are we trying to eliminate the overhead of ST-style >> message passing? Is publish/subscribe easier to understand? Does it lead to >> simpler artifacts? Looser coupling? Does it simplify matters of concurrency? >> > > One thing to consider is that once you move away from two-party > communication relationships toward N-party relationships, you find yourself > in a world where multiple parties are having a *conversation* about some > topic, usually to accomplish some shared goal. With point-to-point > messaging, the conversation is pretty limited, but with pub/sub you can get > some interesting synergies by having multiple participants chipping in > whenever they have something to say that drives the conversation as a whole > forward. > > Tony > -- > Tony Garnock-Jones > tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com > http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/ > -- Tony Garnock-Jones tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
