[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:
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 to a
subhead (like CSP, or concurrency-oriented, or resource-oriented - the
last is my own invention, I think).
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.

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.

Ian East