[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OO and CSP
"Campbell, John" wrote:
> Given that OO seems to have become the Orthodox
> Religion of the rest of the computing world, I've been
> thinking about what "concurrent objects" should mean.
> It seems to me that Occam achieves good performance
> partly because channels are process-to-process links,
> and processes are pretty much statically defined entities.
> What are the performance implications if you allow object-to-
> object channels? At the top level, the concept doesn't seem
> difficult, but at the system implementation level, the implied
> handshaking between all participants in an event would
> require a combinatorial expansion of low-level communication,
> wouldn't it?
If Tom post details of his talk, you will find answers to some of these
questions. Was it Tom who said something like "objects are sitting
You should have been at Kent. We missed you.
Dr A E Lawrence