Talk:Event-driven architecture: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 16 January 2007

Latest revision as of 04:57, 5 February 2024

(25 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Computing }}

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Sigma 7|date=8 March 2007}}

}}

== EDA concept: got it! Now, how do I implement it? ==

I understand the terminology and the concepts. But what products, frameworks, libraries exist to implement EDA? If I use JMS and message-driven beans subscribing to specific topics, is it EDA?

* Answer: Using a messaging broker with a JMS topic per event type is a common implementation strategy for an event bus. However, point-to-point connection between emitters and consumers can lead to more scalable and flexible architectures. The point-to-point implementations are more complex and often require an eventing framework.

== EDA vs EDP ==

I don't think Event Driven Programming is necessarily the same as Event Driven Architecture - unless you believe that IT architecture is not a valid discipline. Architecture defines the framework and concepts, while programming realises and implements them. I don't think a preemptive redirect on the Event Driven Architecture page is appropriate, this article should be restored as a standalone article. [[User:Peter Campbell|Peter Campbell]] <small>[[User talk:Peter Campbell|Talk!]]</small> 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(Also posted on [[User talk:JulesH]])

*:I'm not sure that I agree. Yes, design and implementation are two seperate concepts. But really, that's the point. The implementation is just a concrete example of the design (or any design), and as such I think we should look to merge the articles. [[User:Antgel|Antgel]] 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Okay, talking to myself, but having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JulesH#Redirect_on_Event_Driven_Architecture_page apparently there was a merge effort which didn't reach consensus. Seeing as the article is in need of copy-edit, perhaps we should look again at a merge? [[User:Antgel|Antgel]] 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Event-Driven Architecture ==

Line 34 ⟶ 45:

Author: Youri MALLECK-AHMED mailto:[e-mail]

== This article needs to be more general ==

This article needs to bring out the ideas, and not go so deeply into language-dependent jargon. I would expect to see at least a passing mention of agent-oriented systems, and a more detailed discussion of blackboards, and so forth. [[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 11:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no way in the world a non-techie is going to understand this. We need to get some of the basic concepts down first, including what "traditional" software does.[[User:Trishm|Trishm]] 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:It's a technical subject. How stringent is the requirement to make it accessible to non-techies? How far do we have to go? Look at [[multivariable calculus]]. There's no way a non-mathematician is going to understand that. Yet it's all accurate and skillfully written.

:This article at least uses a real world example of the car dealership's IT system, which could notice and respond to the event of a car's (or more precisely the car's database record in some system) changing from "for sale" to "sold." Continuing and extending that example in layman's terms could be a very successful way to make the article more accessible to a wider audience.

:I don't think it needs copyediting, and I think it's tone and style are fine. I think what people are striving for is that it be re-written for a less technical audience. [[User:Petershank|Petershank]] 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Based on your comment, I would begin to agree that the <nowiki>{{confusing}}</nowiki> tag could be removed, but I still feel there's copyediting required. For example, the ''Simple event processing'' section does provide two examples but the sentence is written in an informal tone. --[[User:Sigma 7|Sigma 7]] 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== Copyedit notice? ==

I just read through the article and didn't notice any weird grammar or spelling. I'm not a native English speaker but feel pretty confident the "copyedit" notice can be removed. --[[User:JVersteeg|JVersteeg]] 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:The problems are more likely related to the style or tone of the article. Based on other tags, the article may be a little confusing - while I can understand it, I'm not comfortable with how it's described (but I'm not sure how to correct it with references that I have). --[[User:Sigma 7|Sigma 7]] 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Relationship to Event-Driven Programming ==

There are certainly differences in scope (single process versus multiple physical nodes across the enterprise), but there are many shared concepts between the two. The syntax and mechanisms differ, but there are events in many languages, such as C#, that you can subscribe to. EDA takes that earlier model and expands upon it, and it would be useful to see that explained, which would also give a good introduction to the subject. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:64.91.76.251|64.91.76.251]] ([[User talk:64.91.76.251|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/64.91.76.251|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

==Copyedit==

== Event processing styles section is not clear ==

"Event processing styles" section needs to be more elaborative. I wanted to know about EDA and it is confusing to know the different between Simple Event Processing and Event Stream Processing. The explanation given says that both of them are meant for real-time flow but not depicting the difference. And, please explain what is a "complex event" before explain Complex Event Processing style. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cuddaloredavinci|Cuddaloredavinci]] ([[User talk:Cuddaloredavinci#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cuddaloredavinci|contribs]]) 09:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->