One new concept coming from the hardware design is arriving. It's the componant. It look like an object. But could be see as something "bigger". Object was first develop for reusability. But in reality, some programmer said that at most, 30% of classes of a particular project could be reused, because there are too much depencies between classes.

Componant in hardware have input and ouput and didn't need the existence of others "things" (class, object definition,...) to work. It could seen as actual plug-in or some program that could interract with others by shared memory to extend fonctionnality.

Personnaly, i think that a component should be active and should run in it's own thread. So you could write threaded code very easly and program multicpu machine.

So a component could be an active object that is suffisant to it self to be run. It's a little bit like to link 2 process but at the compiler level. But we could imagine dynamic link (change the mailer of an existing program at run time).

The most important thing is to defined how the component could talk to each other. Object-like interface need to know the name of the object and the name of it's method.

Some framework defined some other way to do it. Object-like interface could be seen as software bus. But we could imagine a system of channel (a communication component it-self ?) where each componant could be attached. So somebody could send a message(?) thought this channel and every attached componant will receive it.

We could also implement event port to defined reactive componant to the outside world but it very much like the other type of port.

The intermediate object is the easiest way to be more flexible for programming.

I hope i'll be explicit enough.

nicO

It sounds a lot like DLLs, COM and ActiveX.

nicO wrote in message <3B8FFDD2.991165B1@ifrance.com>...
>One new concept coming from the hardware design is arriving. It's the componant. It look like an object. But could be see as something "bigger". Object was first develop for reusability. But in reality, some programmer said that at most, 30% of classes of a particular project could be reused, because there are too much depencies between classes.
>
>Componant in hardware have input and ouput and didn't need the existence of others "things" (class, object definition,...) to work. It could seen as actual plug-in or some program that could interract with others by shared memory to extend fonctionnality.
>
>Personnaly, i think that a component should be active and should run in it's own thread. So you could write threaded code very easly and program multicpu machine.
>
>So a component could be an active object that is suffisant to it self to be run. It's a little bit like to link 2 process but at the compiler level. But we could imagine dynamic link (change the mailer of an existing program at run time).
>
>The most important thing is to defined how the component could talk to each other. Object-like interface need to know the name of the object and the name of it's method.
>
>Some framework defined some other way to do it. Object-like interface could be seen as software bus. But we could imagine a system of channel (a communication component it-self ?) where each componant could be attached. So somebody could send a message(?) thought this channel and every attached componant will receive it.
>
>We could also implement event port to defined reactive componant to the outside world but it very much like the other type of port.
>
>The intermediate object is the easiest way to be more flexible for programming.
>
>I hope i'll be explicit enough.
>
>nicO

Walter a écrit :
> 
> It sounds a lot like DLLs, COM and ActiveX.
> 

I don't know it  but it look like. And those example aren't a feature of a language. Interface aren't stricly defined. If you want you could write OO style code with c.

nicO

> nicO wrote in message <3B8FFDD2.991165B1@ifrance.com>...
> >One new concept coming from the hardware design is arriving. It's the componant. It look like an object. But could be see as something "bigger". Object was first develop for reusability. But in reality, some programmer said that at most, 30% of classes of a particular project could be reused, because there are too much depencies between classes.
> >
> >Componant in hardware have input and ouput and didn't need the existence of others "things" (class, object definition,...) to work. It could seen as actual plug-in or some program that could interract with others by shared memory to extend fonctionnality.
> >
> >Personnaly, i think that a component should be active and should run in it's own thread. So you could write threaded code very easly and program multicpu machine.
> >
> >So a component could be an active object that is suffisant to it self to be run. It's a little bit like to link 2 process but at the compiler level. But we could imagine dynamic link (change the mailer of an existing program at run time).
> >
> >The most important thing is to defined how the component could talk to each other. Object-like interface need to know the name of the object and the name of it's method.
> >
> >Some framework defined some other way to do it. Object-like interface could be seen as software bus. But we could imagine a system of channel (a communication component it-self ?) where each componant could be attached. So somebody could send a message(?) thought this channel and every attached componant will receive it.
> >
> >We could also implement event port to defined reactive componant to the outside world but it very much like the other type of port.
> >
> >The intermediate object is the easiest way to be more flexible for programming.
> >
> >I hope i'll be explicit enough.
> >
> >nicO