The topic of discussion was about whether certain functionality in a software should be implemented via events or via function calls directly to the concerned component. More concretely, should the coupling be via events as in a pubsub based system or should it be via known function end-points on specific objects.
If the event based approach is used, there is lose coupling, and the coupling is on events. Using the other approach, there is strong coupling and one component needs to know about the interfaces of the other component.
Let's take a toy example to analyze this situation.
Consider an interior stylist that is developing an integrated home theatre system. Say there are multiple components involved:
1. Speaker system
2. Television
3. CD player
4. Satellite system
For all practical purposes, users should not need to turn on each of the separate components separately (as they do today). They need not even know what the individual constituents of the system are. For that purpose, having a separate button that turns on the Television, one that turns on the speakers and one that controls the CD player seem overkill. Just the press of a single "start CD" button should do the needful.
Let's discuss various ways in which we can achieve the desired effect:
- Strongly couple all the components together so that starting the CD player also triggers the TV and the speaker system.
What happens if the satellite system is turned on? It must also turn on the TV and speaker system. Tomorrow if there is a new device "USB photo viewer" that needs to use the display that the Television provides, it will also need to do the needful.
This method seems to waste a lot of developer time and seems to be prone to errors. What if someone forgets to turn on the TV? Also each component needs to handle the case of when the TV/speaker is already on, etc...
The CD player will work only with that TV set and speaker system that speaks a language that it understands (tied to an interface). Vendors will try to tie users to their interface in the hope of selling them all the components.
Instead, if we just decouple all the system and couple them on events, things become much clearer and easier to work with.
The "button.enterteinment.cdplayer", "button.enterteinment.satellite" and "button.enterteinment.usbdevice" events should be listened to by each of the components and they should react accordingly.
Another thing to remember is how to name the events. We should NOT name events as "start.enterteinment.cdplayer". That sounds very imperative. Naming plays a very important role in how the rest of our system is built around these events. Wrongly named events can cause a lot of confusion and screw up the system even more than what you thought capable of doing!!! Event names should be suggestive of "something happening" and not of "something being asked for".
Accordingly, events should not be named "do-this" and "do-that". Instead, prefer names like "this-happened" and "that-happened" so that listeners can react to these events in the way they deem most fit.
By naming events imperatively, we immediately constrict their use cases to what we think they should be; defeating the original purposes of using events -- which is to free event raisers from thinking of what is to be done in reaction to a raised event.
