DPA Paper Discussion
From ESIWiki
The topics of the two papers are *very* closely interwoven, so much so that I wonder if it is sensible to even see them as distinct. We see to be talking about three things here
- applications
- programming models/abstractions
- patterns
I see the relationships as follows
The pool of *concrete* applications is crucial - without these we can't really evaluate anything else, and it doesn't make sense to talk about patterns without them, as a sanity check. We are then comparing two routes from Prog Abstr. to Applications: a direct route and a route via Patterns. The Patterns work is really a special case of the general implementation question. Maybe the structure of our paper(s) should reflect this? Maybe there is really only one paper. ( Murray )
