Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM, John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 08:41 PM 7/8/2010, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vladimir Prus [ mailto:vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:39 PM
>>> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: Marc Khouzam
>>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
>>> I am becoming somewhat concerned :-( You seem to suggest that
>>> overridding a service -- that is, writing my own service class
>>> and doing what I want -- is a sensible approach.
>> Yes. That's DSF.
> And I'll never forget the day we learned about DSF and were told that.
> I was floored. It is not a sensible approach and one of the main
> reasons I still don't like DSF (the complex asynchronous programming
> model being the other one). If you want DSF to have a higher adoption
> rate, this needs to be addressed.
> Why is that so alarming? DSF is more about a framework and a standardized
> set of service interfaces than it is about specific implementations of those
> interfaces. If the stock implementations don't meet your needs then, worst
> case, you provide your own. This doesn't mean that the base implementations
> can't be made flexible to accommodate different environment and use cases,
> but at the end of the day, they're not going to meet everyone's needs.
Of course. But as an architect, any architecture where cut 'n paste is
encouraged just seems wrong. But as I've been told, this is at the
core of what DSF is.
At any rate, I'll be looking at the TCF debug interface that Eugene
has cooked up once I get back from vacation and see where that takes