Talk:Actor model and process calculi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 7 December 2005

Direct Hyperlinks to Citations

Hey Carl, truly love your work; but any reason why you don't want to link directly to copies of the citations themselves? Or, unless you've got a homepage hosting all of your papers, like Henry Baker does... I'm still looking for a copy of Laws for Communicating Parallel Processes. -- zuzu

Needs rewrite?

I think that it's valuable to compare and contrast Actors and process calculi, but there seems to be a lot lacking here. For example, the article goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the Actor model can represent channel-based communications, but does not discuss at all how Actor address-based communications can be modelled in process calculi. Nor does it describe what the real difference is between name-based &pi-calculus communications and address-based communications. It is, of course, difficult to really do this justice, since process calculi is a broad term for a variety of computational models, whereas the Actors model is one particular type. It would be useful to have the article structured in terms of similarities (of which there are many), and differences.--Allan McInnes 17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Allan,

Thanks for your suggestions. The article originaly got started because an editor asked for a comparison between Actors and the process calculi. Structuring in terms of similarities and differences is reasonable. Any ideas how we can do this?

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 22:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We might also consider retitling the article as something like Models of Concurrency, and then reorienting the article itself to a more NPOV, i.e. briefly describe the similarities and differences between the various approaches for modelling concurrency that are out there. As it stands right now, this article looks a lot like “Actors model vs. everything else”.--Allan McInnes 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a whole article on Actor model and process calculi in its own right for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the space required to cover the subject matter. This is not to say that we should not also' have an article Models of concurrency that also covers Petri nets, SMPs, Web Services, etc. Regards,--Carl Hewitt 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:43, 7 December 2005 edit CarlHewitt (talk \| contribs) 5,700 edits →‎Needs rewrite?: response to Allan McInnes ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:48, 7 December 2005 edit undo CarlHewitt (talk \| contribs) 5,700 edits →‎Needs rewrite?: response to Allan McInnes Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	We might also consider retitling the article as something like ''Models of Concurrency'', and then reorienting the article itself to a more NPOV, i.e. briefly describe the similarities and differences between the various approaches for modelling concurrency that are out there. As it stands right now, this article looks a lot like “Actors model vs. everything else”.--[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)		We might also consider retitling the article as something like ''Models of Concurrency'', and then reorienting the article itself to a more NPOV, i.e. briefly describe the similarities and differences between the various approaches for modelling concurrency that are out there. As it stands right now, this article looks a lot like “Actors model vs. everything else”.--[[User:Allan McInnes\|Allan McInnes]] 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

			:It seems to me that there is a whole article on [[Actor model and process calculi]] in its own right for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the space required to cover the subject matter. This is not to say that we should not ''also''' have an article [[Models of concurrency]] that also covers [[Petri net\|Petri nets]], SMPs, [[Web Services]], ''etc.'' Regards,--[[User:CarlHewitt\|Carl Hewitt]] 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)