Re: [binarycloud-dev] A Request for "A Standard"

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

> Here is an example to illustrate.  Let us say that we are
> trying to give the location of the nearest ACME CORP store
> to the site user, based upon the entry of the site user's
> ZIP code.  Our module load order may be, after the round
> trip passing in the ZIP:
> 
> 1.  Module with some decoration output
> 2.  Module to merely compute great circle distance,
> no output
> 3.  Module to get the nearest store out of the
> database, no output
> 4.  Module with some decoration and output of result

hi Justin,

that sounds like one module with a library to me.

so, you have the library compute great circle,
do a query for the store,
spit it into a template,
and output.

I echo Odysseas' response re: a view on a set... though I will now try and
create scenarios in my head for needing module communication. :)

> For this example data has to be dropped into global
> scope, Hansel and Gretel style, by module 2 for module 3.
> Then data has to be put into global scope by module 3
> for module 4.
>
> THIS IS NO PROBLEM with the facility of BC.  But, in
> a production environment, when our business is going to
> create numerous modules that maybe do tasks that only
> differ slightly, and depend upon data "passed in" from
> a previous manipulation of an upstream module, we have
> to agree among ourself as to the place where this data
> will be picked up, and results dropped.  So, we may
> do something like, everything will be stuck in
> the EYE_LUNCHBOX array/data structure, and comments will be put in
> the module source as to where it expects things,
> and where it will drop things in the EYE_LUNCHBOX
> datastructure/array.

what do you think about the above?

> This is still no problem.  However, one of the advantages
> of BC will be the contribution or interchange with other
> developers of BC modules.  Probably every shop will have
> its "own conventions", and foreign modules may have to
> be tweaked slightly.

it is my hope that the tweaking is done with subclasses and custom templates
only, so everyone can keep pretty clean installs.

> As I said, this is no problem, but I think it would
> be a good idea to consider that BC supplies upon
> initialization a standard place for data passing.
> Sure, we could do it, and put "EYE_LUNCHBOX[]" into
> our copy of Init.  But, I would rather you supply the
> facility, and that this would be available for all
> BC users.  You are not going to dictate that data
> to be passed has to go there.  But, by you setting
> up this facility, at least everybody could start
> using it.
> 
> I don't think this is a trivial request, because if
> BC grows up to be big, and people "use" data dropping
> and picking up from a built-in standard place, the
> ultimate interchange of code between developers would
> become easier.

I think you may be right, though I need to come up with a complex example
that would force me into it :)

_a


--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...

the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com

vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093