wxPython Not Ready for Commercial Use
gerrit.muller at embeddedsystems.nl
Fri Sep 17 08:15:10 CEST 2004
Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
> possibly a long way ahead until some standard finally materializes.
>  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)
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?"
kind regards, Gerrit
Gaudi systems architecting:
More information about the Python-list