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) (New page: category:RIMBAA Issue ''Do not edit - this is a template. Copy its source, and paste to a new wiki page.'' ==Summary== *If one uses the RO cell, how should/could the processing logic b...) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | [[category:RIMBAA Issue]] | + | [[category:RIMBAA Issue]] |
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
*If one uses the RO cell, how should/could the processing logic be supported? | *If one uses the RO cell, how should/could the processing logic be supported? |
Revision as of 15:04, 20 January 2009
Summary
- If one uses the RO cell, 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.
Discussion
Grahame, in his own application development, uses RS, but uses context-driven-logic (i.e. knowledge that the RS stuff conforms to an interaction), to process things and move to the RO cell. RS has the advantage of re-uses of one generic bit of code, supports private non-predefined models (ad-hoc RIM objects). MS is mostly context driven, RS is mostly content driven.
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.