You have caught one of my big weakness Jonathon. even when I re-read what I wrote many times I will not catch these type of mistakes. and =a an=another
Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 11/7/2007 4:14 AM: > BJ, > > I would ask that you say your original message again too. I couldn't > understand either. > > How would running any (typo "and"?) SECAs cause problems with a (typo > "an"?) SECA, or any SECA at all? If I understand it right (I'm sure I > didn't), it sounds very much like "eating bread and butter is not good, > because it would cause problems with eating bread and butter". > > As for gotchas in SECAs, I don't know any. There is the possibility of > an infinite loop, but that is due to bad programming or design. Even > Java can have infinite loops. > > As for "unintended side effects" when adding a new SECA, you can make > sure you hunt down all references to a trigger before attaching another > SECA to that same trigger. Usually, again, this is to prevent infinite > loops (cyclic dependencies). > > Still, it is very easy to catch SECA problems caused by cyclic > dependencies. Fixing those problems is just a matter of knowing what we > want to program, and programming it (expressing it) correctly with > cyclic dependencies or other problems (eg double-triggering). > > The ECA is a very powerful event-driven architecture. If we consider > difficulty with concurrency programming a "gotcha", then anything from > Dojo to SWT to OFBiz's ECA will have such "gotchas". In contrast, > consider how easy it is to use strictly procedural programming > structures, though "easy" soon becomes "tedious" instead. ECAs are not > exactly terribly tricky concurrency stuff, though. > > Jonathon > > BJ Freeman wrote: >> In programming, a gotcha is a feature of a system, a program or a >> programming language that works in the way it is documented but is >> counter-intuitive and almost invites mistakes because it is both >> enticingly easy to invoke and completely unexpected and/or unreasonable >> in its outcome. >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following on 11/6/2007 10:31 PM: >>> BJ >>> >>> This did not make a lot of sense, can you rephrase it? >>> >>> Skip >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Gotchas for SECAS's >>> >>> >>> I have read in code about not running and SECAS because it would cause >>> problems with an seca. >>> >>> is there a documentations of best practices on creating SECAS. Hopefully >>> one that covers gotchas. >>> >>> :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
