Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Can we, can we, can we????... |
---|---|
Author | Jim Starkey |
Post date | 2005-06-16T15:27:23Z |
Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
into a C++ class. The interaction between the parent Port class and the
communication specific subclasses, PortInet, etc., are particularly ugly
and ill-defined. I absolutely cringe at the though that somebody might
consider it to be an example of good object design. I'd rate it no
higher than minimal object sanitation necessary to prevent the spread of
disease.
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376
>I just started the work by encapsulating the rather messy port interface
>
>>Cancelling
>>users' own queries is easy and can be done over a weekend.
>>
>>
>
>Via the separate connection - agreed. Otherwise, you'll need to write a full
>featured port level synchronization over the weekend. I suspect this is
>possible in Vulcan (given the proper port encapsulation it has), but the FB2
>codebase is not the best place for such experiments.
>
>
into a C++ class. The interaction between the parent Port class and the
communication specific subclasses, PortInet, etc., are particularly ugly
and ill-defined. I absolutely cringe at the though that somebody might
consider it to be an example of good object design. I'd rate it no
higher than minimal object sanitation necessary to prevent the spread of
disease.
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376