On 6/13/05, James Lentini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but I do agree that the _common structure is not ideal and sorta ugly. > > I like it on the basis that if gathers up the common structure members > in one place, hence making maintenance of these fields easier in the > future. Granted, there are only two of them, so losing it wouldn't be > a big deal. >
What's important is that enables dapl objects to be handled polymorphically. Internally there are many times when a utility routine only needs to know that something is a dapl object, not which one it is. The alternative is to have some other mechanism to ensure that the shared fields are defined compatibly in all sub-types. This is doable, but declaring a common header is generally the simpler and more self-documenting method of implementing a parent type with multiple sub-types in plain C. The external requirements for polymorphic dapl handles are fewer: get/set consumer handle (which ismostly be for user mode programs anyway) and some methods apply to either a PSP or RSP. > > > > -tduffy > > > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
