Hi, It's complex, and it's consistent with the style of the cache manager to be parsimonious with stack. I'd have to dedicate more time than I can today to speak more clearly to elegance, but parsimony contributes to elegance, too.
Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Wilkinson" <[email protected]> To: "Matt W.Benjamin" <[email protected]> Cc: "Felix Frank" <[email protected]>, "OpenAFS Devel" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:12:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Patch to prepare the client for addition protocols On 2 Jul 2009, at 15:59, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > Hi Felix, > > Good point. The question of stack frames is actually really complex. Whether it's worth adding additional calling depth (Felix's proposal adds a single frame, my proposed changes would add one more) in order to simplify readability and maintainability really depends on a number of factors. Without knowing how deep the stack is at the point that Fetch/Store Proc is called, how many variables the callers have allocated on the stack, and how tight we are for headroom already, we're not going to know whether this is safe or not. But I still maintain, from a pure elegance perspective, that abstraction layers that meander across multiple concepts are untidy. S. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
