RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:41 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
> 
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Marc Khouzam 
> <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vladimir Prus [mailto:vladimir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:39 PM
> >> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: Marc Khouzam
> >> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
> >>
> >> I am becoming somewhat concerned :-( You seem to suggest that
> >> overridding a service -- that is, writing my own service class
> >> and doing what I want -- is a sensible approach.
> >
> > Yes.  That's DSF.
> 
> And I'll never forget the day we learned about DSF and were told that.
> I was floored. It is not a sensible approach and one of the main
> reasons I still don't like DSF (the complex asynchronous programming
> model being the other one). If you want DSF to have a higher adoption
> rate, this needs to be addressed.

I didn't express myself well.
DSF allows you to provide your own service, which is a very powerful thing.
It does not mean you _have_ to.

The hickup here is that people want to re-use DSF-GDB services with minimal
changes.  I'm all for that, but at one point, some code will need to be
re-written by the integrators.

Marc