Anonymous user
Talk:Active object: Difference between revisions
Some clarification and proposal
(task_1 wants a task_2 but doesn't need one) |
(Some clarification and proposal) |
||
Line 6:
After having written them, I like both of these options; but it seems unreasonable to have two slightly different "integrator" tasks. Opinions? --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
: Time dependency was not meant as one on clock readings. The state of an active object changes asynchronously to the object's observers. Unfortunately in this example it can be traced down to clock readings, but that was unintentional.
:* A better example could be an object with the task performing some I/O, like querying a database or making 3D animation. But that would make it too complicated.
:* Alternatively we could use a more complex function of time, in order to make it impossible to evaluate accumulated state change over any considerably larger period of time. Actually all numeric simulations are like that. An easy way could be to make the input ''K'' a subprogram, rather than constant. The integrator will integrate ''K''(''t'')d''t''. Would it be better? --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
| |||