[openbeos] Re: Data or App Centric?
- From: "Jonas Sundström" <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:13:57 +0100 CET
Helmar Rudolph <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
..
> The concept should be neither data nor app-centric
> but _TASK_ centric.
How would this work for the ISV or the lone dev man? I mean, we're used
to a certain way of designing a "complete" application, packaging that
application, and marketing/publishing/distributing it. What now? Design
and implementation by committee?.. A True bazaar model?
In a Task-oriented system, who makes what, and how can it be anything
but chaos? Who takes care of the big picture, and how can an ISV sell
you a solution when applications are merely sets of disjoint
components?
Another thing. In my own experience a large amount of all code exists
only to tie other components together. The idea of making a system of
only (or primarily)
components, ignores the code which exists to bind the components
together. The code that makes the components do meaningful things.
Perhaps this glue code can be seen as the "task logic", if by task you
mean the use cases of the application as implemented by the author. (I
imagine all task paths would still have to be pre-designed to some
degree.)
Perhaps I should ask what's really bugging me.. What is a Task?.. Isn't
it something that is primarily virtual, existing in the head of the
user?.. I see the system as a set of tools which I use to complete
certain tasks, but the system isn't aware of my task. It doesn't have
to be. Task-awareness would forever be like that Office clip, trying to
sell you stuff you don't need. Or trying to push you into some kind of
action pattern, much like the configuration wizards* we all love to
hate.
Anyway, I haven't read "the book" so perhaps there's something I'm not
seeing.
/Jonas Sundström. www.kirilla.com
* "Tried to run, Tried to hide, Break on through to the other side"
(The Doors)
Other related posts:
