On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:24:09PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 29-Nov-2001 Rocco Caputo wrote: > > Probably done in POE::Object or POE::Component or something. I'd like > > to see the object layer get away from Session as the unit of > > interaction. Sessions just aren't built for it, and I don't see a > > reason to make them into it yet. > > > > Maybe I'll figure it out in the spring and it'll all be good. > > I've writen (and am going to deploy ANY DAY NOW) JAAS (just another app > server) which includes an "object layer" we *cough* argued over at the > begining of summer.
I'm really looking forward to see it :) IIRC you said something about JAAS development but it didn't seemed as it would be the kind of object layer we are looking for. please surprise us :) anyway, i think this is a general problem. is there something like a common idea of how the object layer should look like ? there can be different ones of course, but there will be redundancy somehow. and as our time to work on them is limited, i don't think this is good. i hope we will find a way that we all like ... > > I need to finish documenting it and start showing it to folks. Roughly, > the object layer has the following properties: > > - objects are perl objects. As much as possible, they look like regular > method calls. In fact, ideally a method could be invoked directly or via > POE. > > - all access to POE is via JAAS::Services, which does some pretty messy > things at times. > > - each object is attached to a session that accepts/sends events > > - JAAS methods are declared via a hash that a method called 'method()' > returns. An object's session calls this method when the object is > attached to it. there are several things that come to my mind that need to be addressed, and i;d like to see how you solved them. personally i have rather detailed thoughts about what i would need, the solutions are for some cases not as detailed :) torvald
