This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Processing Logic in RIMBAA Applications"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[category: | + | [[category:Closed AID Issue]] |
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
| − | *If one uses the RO cell, how should/could the processing logic be supported? | + | *If one uses the RO cell (of the [[Technology Matrix]]), how should/could the processing logic be supported? |
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance. | *Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance. | ||
*Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates. | *Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *See [http://www.insighteck.com/blog/?p=123 GELLO and RIMBAA blogpost by Ioan Salau] for a discussion of the ralationship between [[GELLO]] and PL. | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
| − | Grahame, in his own application development, uses | + | |
| + | RO/RS has the advantage of re-uses of one generic bit of code, supports private non-predefined models (ad-hoc RIM objects). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Grahame, in his own application development, uses RO, but uses context-driven-logic (i.e. knowledge that the RO stuff conforms to an interaction - or more particularly, a particular use-case), to process things (and move to the RP or AP cell). By using an underlying RO, I can mix generic and specific use-case driven code seamlessly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In general, MS/MO is mostly context driven, RS/RO (or, rim-based logic) is mostly content driven. | ||
| + | * This may be because the RIM is a static information model, and that it if it was extended to cover behavioural stuff, that logic would be abstractable? (--[[User:Grahamegrieve|Grahamegrieve]] 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)) | ||
MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO. | MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO. | ||
| + | * certainly this is true, but not all the logic is transitions. --[[User:Grahamegrieve|Grahamegrieve]] 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Andy Harris: data layer should be context driven (though context may be given by content) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:11, 25 March 2015
Summary
- If one uses the RO cell (of the Technology Matrix), how should/could the processing logic be supported?
Analysis
Grahame pointed out that PL may be done in multiple ways. The extremes are:
- Content driven logic: based on whatever is contained in the data instance.
- Context driven logic: based on the context of the data, e.g. based on knowledge that the data conforms to an InteractionId, a MessageType or Templates.
- See GELLO and RIMBAA blogpost by Ioan Salau for a discussion of the ralationship between GELLO and PL.
Discussion
RO/RS has the advantage of re-uses of one generic bit of code, supports private non-predefined models (ad-hoc RIM objects).
Grahame, in his own application development, uses RO, but uses context-driven-logic (i.e. knowledge that the RO stuff conforms to an interaction - or more particularly, a particular use-case), to process things (and move to the RP or AP cell). By using an underlying RO, I can mix generic and specific use-case driven code seamlessly.
In general, MS/MO is mostly context driven, RS/RO (or, rim-based logic) is mostly content driven.
- This may be because the RIM is a static information model, and that it if it was extended to cover behavioural stuff, that logic would be abstractable? (--Grahamegrieve 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
MvdZ: I think the cells in the Technology Matrix are different representations of information, so Logic will be in the transition from e.g. MO to MO.
- certainly this is true, but not all the logic is transitions. --Grahamegrieve 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Andy Harris: data layer should be context driven (though context may be given by content)
