On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:27:11AM +0200, Erik Johansson wrote: > Continuing the work of rewriting the old CBuffer I have created CTlvBuffer to > implement TLV functions. It uses the new CBuffer internally. I think it is a > complete replacement for the old class, but please take a look and tell me > what you think.[1] It's proably a bit rough at the edges...
The TLV functions are specific only to ICQ, so in the end it will be a part of the ICQ plugin. So, I was thinking that it would be best to have the TLV functions be a part of a new class CIcqBuffer, which inherits from CBuffer or uses CBuffer as a member, if it provides a public interface for those functions (So, inheritance is better I think). > A question about coding style and acronyms: > Should TLV be written as TLV or follow normal naming rules (TlvClass, > tlvFunction)? I opted for the second option since I think that the advantage > of never having to stop and think if an author consider, for example TLV, to Yes, having them in the same format will really help out the developers to focus more on the code than spelling mechanisms. Jon -- ________________________________________________________ Jon Keating ICQ: 16325723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.licq.org GPG: 2290A71F http://www.thejon.org HOME: Minamiashigara, Japan
pgpJkqmnczKnY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
