[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [patch #5209] Proposed casefile changes
From: |
Ben Pfaff |
Subject: |
Re: [patch #5209] Proposed casefile changes |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:02:36 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
John Darrington <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:15:33AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> Please create a "struct casefile_class" and move the function pointers
> in "struct casefile" into it. This better abstracts the casefile
> implementations and saves time and memory because only a single
> pointer needs to be set when creating a casefile. (This is like the
> way the output drivers work.)
>
> OK. It's not quite that simple, because different subclasses will
> have different implementations. But I can do that.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? (Perhaps
this will clear up your answer to the following comment as well.)
> Currently the patch hard-codes the places that use a casefile to use a
> fastfile. They should really, in most cases at all, produce the kind
> of file that the UI wants. We need some mechanism for that. Perhaps
> procedure.c (or the UI?) should supply a function that creates and
> returns the "preferred" kind of casefile.
>
> I believe this is what the textbooks call an "abstract factory". It
> may be a good idea to have, but it can be done as a seperate exercise
> I think.
Yes, it can, and if you want to wait until we really know what we
want that's fine with me.
(I'm aware of the various "Design Patterns" definitions but I
don't usually think in terms of them, for what it's worth.)
> Did you have any thoughts on my questions regarding the sleep,
> to_disk, in_core and read_mode functions?
I don't think I saw the questions. Where can I find them?
--
Ben Pfaff
email: address@hidden
web: http://benpfaff.org