[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: re commit from today
- To: "B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: re commit from today
- From: Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:39:12 +0300
- Cc: Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ZZ Development <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <3AE402D2.68F71604@xxxxxx>; from b.fallenstein@xxxxxx on Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:24:19PM +0200
- Mail-followup-to: "B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@xxxxxx>, Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ZZ Development <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <3AE402D2.68F71604@xxxxxx>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:24:19PM +0200, B. Fallenstein wrote:
> > Beautify a bit. Object.getClass() exists
> Of course it does. Using it means that you cannot subclass Hooks,
> though, and the indended use for decoration we discussed on IRC seemed
> to mandate subclassing.
> Actually, though, I'm thinking now it might be better not to use them
> that way: it would make view's life easier if the appropriate hook were
> added automatically to a vobset when they add a span of that type... but
> I don't know yet.
I think that for index hooks, this works out fine. And if we want,
we can spec it to return any hook that implements the given class.
OTOH, I'm starting to think that this may actually be a bit too complex
a system: we don't actually need to have index hooks at all, simply
something that enumerates all vobs in a vobset, since we do not need
to add the vobs to the index at the same time as they are added to the
> (Sorry this isn't a technical reply, but zzcommits is delayed today.)
I think this is probably a better format anyway.