Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 23:18, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > And... don't forget that you *have* distributed computation with an
> > OODB! Obviously the objects must move into a running Smalltalk in order
> > to be processed (instead of being on the disk). And where that running
> > Smalltalk is placed in the network is irrelevant.
>
> What's mostly missing in that picture is asynchonicity; typically,
> dependents are not serialized into an object database. Probably for good
> reasons, too ;-), but I miss it now and then.

I am not sure what you mean by this - are you meaning that it would be
nice to be able to depend on objects in the db and get
events/notifications?

We built that on top of GemStone (both S and J) using its object
notification primitives. And I have exchanged a few emails with Chris on
this subject (since I think it is a crucial mechanism) - he was going to
look into adding that kind of basic mechanism (being able to get
notifications telling you which object were committed of those you have
registered interest in) - in fact he said it would probably be easy to
do.

regards, Göran