New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
FBP Definition - "processes" or "components" #6
Comments
Here is how I've been using the terms in NoFlo, essentially distinguishing "definitions" from actual live instances. Not live:
Live:
|
I am comfortable with that terminology! So IMO the Definition and Paul On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Henri Bergius notifications@github.com
|
👍 I like the terminology. |
Seems as though "process" has been accepted - I didn't hear any loud outcry against it! So I have updated the Definition page, and I think we can close this one... |
While writing the previous issue, I noticed that the definition talks about "components" as nodes, etc. Actually, in my book I distinguish between "components" - the code itself - and "processes" - instances of components in the network. we need to stress that you can have multiple instances of a component in the same network.
That said, I realize that "process" is an ambiguous term in programming. In my book, 2nd ed., page ix. (Preface to 2nd ed.), I found a whole bunch of terms used in the literature for "unit of concurrency" - all no doubt with their own connotations:
process (Erlang)
actor (actor theory)
agent
transaction
thread
operator (MIT, Expressor, et al.)
vat (E language)
island (Tweak)
task (Ada)
resource (Minuet)
stage (John Hartmann’s CMS Pipelines)
I don't know what the derivation of "vat" is - something you brew beer in?
Any preferences?!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: