User:Thijshijsijsjss/Human Parser/About Signalling: Difference between revisions
m (Add monospaced font) |
m (Remove duplicate word) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[disassociative anecdote, me waiting - (unavailable and apologetic?)] | [disassociative anecdote, me waiting - (unavailable and apologetic?)] | ||
In programming, often two agents A and B rely on each other. For example, A and B are processes and B needs to happen only after A has finished. Or A and B are physics objects and B is activated only when colliding with A. Or A and B are humans, dependent on each other. There must be a | In programming, often two agents A and B rely on each other. For example, A and B are processes and B needs to happen only after A has finished. Or A and B are physics objects and B is activated only when colliding with A. Or A and B are humans, dependent on each other. There must be a way for A and B to communicate about this event. | ||
A typical way of going about this communication is an 'observer pattern': B 'observes' A, to continuously check if it needs to do something. This makes B very passive, waiting patiently on A, and spending all their resources in a paralyzing state of monitoring. | A typical way of going about this communication is an 'observer pattern': B 'observes' A, to continuously check if it needs to do something. This makes B very passive, waiting patiently on A, and spending all their resources in a paralyzing state of monitoring. | ||
Revision as of 18:23, 24 January 2025
[disassociative anecdote, me waiting - (unavailable and apologetic?)]
In programming, often two agents A and B rely on each other. For example, A and B are processes and B needs to happen only after A has finished. Or A and B are physics objects and B is activated only when colliding with A. Or A and B are humans, dependent on each other. There must be a way for A and B to communicate about this event.
A typical way of going about this communication is an 'observer pattern': B 'observes' A, to continuously check if it needs to do something. This makes B very passive, waiting patiently on A, and spending all their resources in a paralyzing state of monitoring. Reversly, A is forced to be intruded, always being watched. There's a lot of pressure on A's availability: if A were to be unavailable, B would crash.
An alternative to this is signalling: instead of A being observed constantly by B, A will shout whenever it's ready, and B will react accordingly. By doing this, the communicative channels are essentially reversed. A is freed from constant observation. B has a lot more autonomy, being able to do what it wants or needs, while not having to monitor A. Additionally, because B is not reliant on A, signal communication doesn't cause runtime crashes when the connected object is removed. This allows for great decoupling, and means even more autonomy: A doesn't need to be available at all times -- and doesn't need to apologize for that.
[me shouting]