wxPython Not Ready for Commercial Use

Gerrit Muller gerrit.muller at embeddedsystems.nl
Fri Sep 17 08:15:10 CEST 2004


Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
<...snip...>
> possibly a long way ahead until some standard finally materializes.
> --
> [1] What did I mean with "a different approach"? non-standart
> interfaces, lack of naming conventions, different ways to bind to or
> handle external events, etc.The integration depends on more factors
> than the basic class hierarchy -- the actual usage of the classes (how
> they are instantiated, bound together, etc.) must be similar enough to
> make integration possible. As it is now, it'is possible to have two
> wxPython apps programmed in such a way that integration between them
> difficult or even impossible, due to this factor.
> 
Actually you mean expensive in terms of effort. The mismatch between the 
architectures of both applications causes a lot of adaptations and 
integration effort. See: "From Legacy to State-of-the-art; Architectural 
Refactoring." (especially page 7)
<http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/ArchitecturalRefactoringPaper.pdf>

If you want to build bigger systems with cooperating applications then 
you will have to work also on the architecture of the total system: a 
minimal set of rules and conventions to enable this integration. I do 
fully agree that most designers underestimate the costs of integration. 
Often the class hierarchy or similar "structure" rules are seen as the 
architecture. However you need a set of other views to enable this 
integration, among them the choice of integrating concepts, see page 10 
of "Light Weight Architectures; The way of the future?" 
<http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/LightWeightArchitectingPaper.pdf>

kind regards, Gerrit
-- 
Gaudi systems architecting:
<http://www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch/>




More information about the Python-list mailing list