Jump to content

Erling

Members
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Erling last won the day on July 18 2015

Erling had the most liked content!

About Erling

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not necessarily. Starting sequences could be delegated, without reference to sequencers. What often has to be dealt with, though, is the little things in between sequences, necessary to orchestrate operations, but it is not obvious to me that the sequencer should be involved in this (either). Another option could be to implement virtual sequences by means of the environment, and leave the sequencers an implementation detail. For example, if a piece of information is needed, and all the sequence has to talk to is the sequencer, then it is necessary for the environment to cache the information o
  2. It seems to me this would be reinventing global variables. I believe it is better to encapsulate related properties in components and sequences and strive to make them standalone and decoupled. If you need additional behavior later on, it may be better to extend instead of if-else-ing the original class on global knobs. Yes, but there are other solutions to this problem. For example, the good little monitor could handle interrupts as events, and transfer any additional info, if necessary, through the event. A sequence could fetch the event of interest from a pool setup by the environmen
×
×
  • Create New...