[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Issue 251] Some early thoughts
I took an AI to come up with a proposal for issue 251 [1]. Here are my initial thoughts: Issue 251 points out that currently the cardinality (number of channel connections) of producers and consumers is 0..n. It also suggests that we allow 0..1 and 1..1. It seems obvious that this is coming from the fact that in the service-reference model these possibilities exists. I believe that such a comparison isn't appropriate. In the service-reference model, a component-reference specifies an interface-based dependency. Sometimes such dependencies must to be satisfied to get the component/composite to work correctly. For example, an order processing component may have a dependency on a credit-card service. Unless that dependency is satisfied, the order processing component just won't work. Similarly, the same order processing component may want to allow the dependency to be satisfied by multiple credit-card services (requirement being, there be at least one). These dependencies get injected into the component and the component, based on its internal logic, may decide which services to call. The pub-sub model is different than this. A consumer may express interest in certain events, but there is absolutely no guarantee that an event may ever be delivered to it. Similarly, a producer may produce events, but there is not guarantee that any consumer is either listening for those events or even if a consumer is listening, it may decide to just drop it on the floor and not take any action based on that event. Furthermore, these kind of connections are meant to be many-to-many. As far as cardinality goes, the cardinality has to be wrt how many channels the producer/consumer is connected to regardless of how many consumer/producers are on those channels. This makes cardinality in pub-sub tricky. As far as cardinality upper bound goes, what is the difference between a consumer connected to 2 channels each with 5 producers and the same consumer connected to a single channel with 10 producers? Therefore, for the cardinality upper bound, I don't think it makes sense to have a "1" restriction. IOW, it should always be "n". WRT cardinality lower bound, there are two possibilities "0" or "1". I'm leaning towards saying it is always "0", since there is no guarantee that even if you connect the producer/consumer to a channel that anyone else is participating. But I have a feeling that there *might* be good reasons to allow a "1" restriction on the lower bound Thoughts? -Anish -- [1] http://osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-251
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]