On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 03:50 PM, Stuart Donaldson wrote:
More useful, i.e., deserves to be documented better and better advertised.I've actually come to feel that the embedded HTTP server is a bigger deal than I thought when I was putting it in. In particular for someone who wants to test Webware -- after trying to set up various other frameworks I've realized what a pain setup is for an >> evaluation.Bigger deal in what way, as in more dificult to get right? Or as in more important to an evaluator?
I found several areas that it looked like the inheritence structure was a little off. Although it might just be a stylistic thing. I believe that base classes should define (even if unused) all of the properties that are expected to be known in the base-class module. An example is that HTTPRequest has .setTransaction() and .transaction(), while Request() has .clearTransaction().Certainly. It's hard because Request is an abstract class that has only one child. To really understand what Request should be we need at least two children. For instance, EmailRequest would be an option currently. Once we have that Request's role will be more clear. Until then I don't think heavy refactoring will make sense, because we'll just want to refactor again later.
If a Request always has a transaction then the set and get methods belong in Request().
How should we procede so that we don't stumble over each-other? Some changes like what you suggest regarding re-ordering methods have a high-liklihood of generating conflicts.Reordering won't change the semantics of course -- I'm just talking about moving a method from one place in the file to another so that similar methods are next to each other. But of course merging changes would be a pain after that.
I'm probably going to start on classes that are are more on the outside of the system, not the core classes. I'll be sure to give warning before I work on them. Right now I'm thinking I'd like to do reference documentation next -- it'll give me a chance to read through all the code and refamiliarize myself, and the product will be useful for anyone using 0.8.
Should we just announce "Hey, I'm working in this...." and then outline what we plan to do there, and what files and such we plan to be altering? Is that too loose of a control?
I think that will work fine.
Ian ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
