On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:06 -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > 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.
We have polymorphism already: dapl inherits from dat. Are you saying this is so we can have some sorta multiple inheritance? I don't think this is really used. In fact, in dapl, the list is going away, the lock (and flags) should be in a per struct anyways. So, all we have left is a pointer to ia? Just add that to each struct. Not a big deal. > The external requirements for polymorphic dapl handles are fewer: > get/set consumer handle (which ismostly be for user mode > programs anyway) done in dat, now. > and some methods apply to either a PSP or > RSP. which is a common structure with just a flag to tell the difference. -tduffy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
