Comments on: Cairngorm Responder Interface Change

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:56:36 +0000

…actually, I take that back. It should be probably be rest parameters, meaning … args so you can pass an optional amount as well as none, and it should return void.

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:39:20 +0000

Good point, Robin. I’ve used Flashcom once in ARP, but never used a Delegate for it since it was all NetConnectioncall’s… hrm. None of those would work, and the current interface would prevent (preclude?) you from using them.

It should probably be actually cast to *, meaning, no type. While this is slower than Object, you never know what you are getting back, and this is the most flexible, and explitly written to be so.

By: Steven Webster

Steven Webster — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:34:48 +0000

Robin makes a fair point … one of the things I never liked about the Command pattern implementations in J2EE microarchitectures, was how the Command was tied to the technology implementation – in the case of J2EE, Commands ‘knew’ about HTTPRequest and HTTPResponse, which never felt right.

As you say, in Cairngorm 2.0 we’ve proposed (we’re open to suggestion here, it’s a beta, and your feedback is both invaluable and welcome) an alternative implementation.

Does the approach in Cairngorm 2.0 work for you, Jesse ?

Best,

Steven

By: Robin Hilliard

Robin Hilliard — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:05:34 +0000

Hi Jesse,

But what if you Business Delegate was calling something other than remoting that involved an asyncronous call requiring the Responder interface? Examples:

– FES Messaging
– FCS NetConnection.call
– XML Socket, XMLSend, LoadVariables etc

Cheers,
Robin