Subject: Re: AP framework weakness
From: Thomas Fletcher (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2001 - 18:38:37 CST
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> I'm currently analyzing the ap framework to know what I have to do
> for the Mac port.
> I mostly compare beOS and UNIX port, and find that there are too much
> For example, compare
> and you'll find that they are ALMOST identical: only the frame class
> is different, but since they both come from the same incestor, there
> should be no problem at all.
> I have lot of other examples like this. What about cleaning all this
> up ?
> Shorter benefits: better design, less work for me
> Long term benefits: less bug to fix, less code lines to maintain.
I can tell you the reason for this. I did the initial BeOS port as
well as the QNX port. I had an awk/sed script that I would run that
would magically transform 80% of the code to shat I wanted to get me
up and running. Having done two ports, there is a heck of a lot of
stuff that I've seen repeated over and over again. The problem is that
initially with only two platforms (unix & Windows) the amount of
granularity needed wasn't exactly clear. Now with 4.5 + 1 ports I
think that there would be great benefit in going through some of
this code and amalgamating it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Mar 06 2001 - 18:36:31 CST