On 04/01/2014 12:04 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 04/01/2014 05:43 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 04/01/2014 03:49 PM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi Peter,
The design using enum for the os dependencies does not make it possible
to include only the support needed for a particular platform at build
time.
Every implementation will be carrying around the support for all the
other platforms.
A build time binding would be more efficient.
Roger
That's true. A trade-off between maintainability and efficiency. The
efficiency has two categories here. One is the size of the
distributable and the other is run-time efficiency. I've been thinking
to improve both efficiencies (the run-time in particular) with a
little re-design. Since nearly each OS platform requires a sub-class
of UNIXProcess to implement the differences, I can move the
implementations of various methods now in Os enum to the UNIXProcess
subclasses and get rid of Os enum per-instance subclasses.
Let me try this and see what comes out.
Hi Roger,
Well, it turns out the methods would like to stay in Os (renamed to
Platform), but there is no need for per-enum-instance subclasses. Using
enum constructor parameters and switch statements makes code even more
compact and easy to follow...
Is the concern source classes or compiled classes? IIRC every
switch-on-enum produces an additional .class file.
--
- DML
