[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intel: timely article
On 27 Jun 2006, at 20:00, tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Would like to suggest plugging the phrase "communicating-process
architecture" (CPA). We have adopted this term for the conference
series, and hence can back it up. It is also fairly close to the
expansion of CSP.
I agree, Neil, about using "process-oriented" EVERY time we deal with
someone who may be outside our circle. Then, we can go on to point
subhead (like CSP, or concurrency-oriented, or resource-oriented - the
last is my own invention, I think).
My only slight concern with "process-oriented" is that it smacks a
little of the idea of somehow replacing "object-oriented", and I have
encountered considerable sensitivity there.
My own feeling is the two sit happily together. Processes can own
objects, communicate them, and even keep them from interfering with
each other. Quite parental really.