|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re: Re: Re: Reblessingby Sherlock (Deacon)
|on Jun 21, 2001 at 19:21 UTC||Need Help??|
dragonchild hit on a very good point - it seems to me as if you're defining your own message set. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what you need to ask your server, you can define your own way of doing it. It's somewhat like defining your own network protocol. You make a request, your connection object interprets that request and sends it off to the server, then it simply funnels back the reply.
I tried to point out in my first post:
As long as the methods it uses are well thought-out...
The connection object, along with your message set is, by no means, trivial. Far from it! With this sort of architecture, I tend to allow the "smarts" of the application to sit on the outer edge of the application, that being mostly within the client and somewhat within the connection object.
But when you're creating this new message set for yourself, heed dragonchild's advice when he/she says that you need to account for server types that you haven't even thought of yet. Obviously, if you're considering the connection object approach, you're thinking about future expansion and adaptation of this project. That might very well include the use of a new type of server and your message set had better be able to adapt to that easily or your connection object's design is going to go down the tubes in a hurry.
I'd spend some serious time contemplating the message set and where you want to put the "smarts" of this application.
Skepticism is the source of knowledge as much as knowledge is the source of skepticism.