[erlang-questions] OPL on Erlang (Was earlier "RE:Best practices in gen_fsm usage")
Fri Dec 9 05:41:10 CET 2011
[mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Torben Hoffmann
I think that Object Process Methodology (used lightly) and Message Sequence
Charts are better ways of structuring your high level thoughts.
Found a reflection of my voice in you!
I am contemplating to compile a specification of what a system is and does
as stated using OPM/OPL, into (and run on) an Erlang AOS (Application
Operating System, as Joe puts it!).
There is some "impedance" mismatch between the "symbols" (ideas) of OPL and
Erlang, though in spirit, I (want to) believe that Erlang AOS is a perfect
(i.e. isomorphic) vehicle for materializing a "OPL system". To give some
1) A "process" of OPM is not an "Erlang process" - well, yes & no!
2) Moreover, an "OPM object" needs to find an expression in "Erlang process"
- again, yes & no!
3) OPM maintains the duality of "objects and processes", whereas Erlang
wants to see every_thing_ as a "process".
4) For OPM, "objects" are the things that are shaped and take shape, and
"processes" are the things that shape the objects - i.e. "shape" is both a
verb and noun. In Erlang, what gets shaped is also a process, and what
shapes is obviously a process.
5) I am not confident enough to say something on "state" in OPM and "state"
My present view of world is as shown (& determined) by classic C with
Unix-IPC. I don't know other worlds. I haven't made much of progress in
Erlang AOS either, beyond few readings of Joe's thesis paper.
I am currently stuck on integrating the spirit of OPM/OPL and spirit of
Is there some work going around in OPM and Erlang that can help me unlock
spiritually? Or, may I receive some help from you on how you materialize a
OPM-thought system into an Erlang system? Some directions are good enough -
I know otherwise this is a topic of a full volume.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions