Hi, Brett > Thus a big difference for understanding the two is that: > * View makes an event "concrete" using objects and it dispatches > these events to developer defined functions. > *Rugby "eats" the event and instead focusses on providing a > pidgeon hole (ticket) for the function results. > > This means that currently a Rugby developer has to, in effect, re-create the > consumed event through polling. I wonder then, if Rugby provided a > dispatch system, whether it would be more understandable. Please note, > I'm quite unaware of the impact on the Rugby design this idea implies.
Is this what you want? - client send a request to the server port and ask for an anwer on a given port - client go to wait on his port - server awakes for the client request and makes what the request asked - server send an answer to the client port - server wait - client awakes because receveis the answer So the "ticket" should be only a client port to wait for. This is the mode in which async code was executed by ARexx on old Amiga. --- Ciao Romano > > What do you think? I'm prepared to be told that I've missed something > crucial and valuable :) > > Brett. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
