I'm slightly against. No real reason :) except that it'll definitely
bloat the WPO build.
M-A
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Darin Fisher<da...@chromium.org> wrote:
> MessageLoop is not designed to be subclassed. Call me a minimalist, but I
> think it damages slightly the readability of the code to have methods marked
> virtual that do not need to be. That said, I love mocking. Since a lot of
> code doesn't actually need a MessageLoop so much as a place to post tasks,
> maybe it would be better to define an interface for posting tasks that
> MessageLoop can implement. Then a lot of code could be switched over to
> that interface, making the code a bit more abstract. Think of
> IPC::Message::Sender as an example of this kind of abstraction.
> -Darin
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) <ajw...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> I've noticed that most public functions on MessageLoop are non-virtual.
>> How bad would it be to make PostTask, and its variants, virtual? Are the
>> perf implications or similar that would be bad?
>> I'd like to be able to use gmock to mock out a message loop so I can test
>> if my code knows to stop posting tasks. However, not having the message
>> loop be virtual makes this hard.
>> Thanks,
>> Albert
>>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
