Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bellcore!porthos!taichi!haim
From: haim@taichi.uucp (24122-Haim Kilov(L028)m000)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Objects and Interactions: Separate Definitions
Message-ID: <1991May21.142454.9210@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Date: 21 May 91 14:24:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: porthos.1991May21.142454.9210
References: <3999@motcsd.csd.mot.com>
Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
Reply-To: haim@taichi.UUCP (24122-Haim Kilov)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Lines: 14

"Let's say we have objects X and Y, and that in Smalltalk X would use
Y in some way, by sending it messages and interpreting the responses.
With interaction definitions, X would say "Start interaction Z
with Y".  An instance of interaction definition Z is created,
and it sends any number of messages to X and Y, interpreting the
responses.  Objects don't send messages to other objects."

OK, but X and Y are (almost always) symmetric, so Y may also start the
interaction Z with X. Therefore the creation of Z should be made possible both
for X and for Y. Perhaps, one of these is created explicitly, and the other -
"automatically".

-Haim Kilov
haim@bcr.cc.bellcore.com