4 ms·
To me it's a bit like event-based programming: separating the event (when to do) and the eventhandler (what to do) where handlers depend only on events and not
by pezo1919 7y ago
To me it's a bit like event-based programming: separating the event (when to do) and the eventhandler (what to do) where handlers depend only on events and not on other handlers (or state), so the logic the handlers depend on remain separate.
- wool_gather 7y agoYes, although a key difference seems to be that steps in the pipeline are allowed to interfere with arbitrary other steps.
- tabtab 7y agoTraditional event-driven programming often has event priority values or rank, and an optional "end event processing" operation associated with events, doesn't it? MS-Outlook's "rule engine" has these, for example. That seems the same thing as "allowed to interfere with arbitrary other steps". Sure, you can "lock out" using/modifying such operations, but one must know when and where to lock someone/something out. Programming is still a persnickety endeavor with or without using events.
- AstralStorm 7y agoAt least events themselves are processed sequentially, so having a trace of them is meaningful. Here, anything goes, as there's a multitude of queues.