TypedControls branch? was Re: [Clam-devel] Bug solved for deleting Out In Ports and Out In Controls

Francisco Tufró nictuku at gmail.com
Fri Jul 18 06:29:27 PDT 2008

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Hernán Ordiales <h at ordia.com.ar> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Pau Arumí <parumi at iua.upf.edu> wrote:
> > On dj, 2008-07-17 at 18:18 -0300, Hernán Ordiales wrote:
> >> just one note more, i think that the main issue that makes really big
> >> this patch is because now we are using BaseTypedIn|OutControl where we
> >> had In|OutControl (registry, etc)
> >>
> >> with this class diagram:
> >> class BaseTypedIn|OutControl
> >> class TypedIn|OutControl: BaseTypedIn|OutControl
> >> class In|OutControl: TypedIn|OutControl<TControlData>
> >>
> >> so many of the code using In|OutControls types is replaced by
> >> BaseTypedIn|Out to allow a general treatment of the controls. Other
> >> issue is that in some parts where now is required a Base type, current
> >> code is using an interface not present in Base, only at old
> >> In|OutControl classes, and are methods not-convenient to add to Base,
> >> so a code change/refactor is required.
> >
> > Yes, but many of these rafactorings can be done at trunk before the
> > actual switch. For example substitute
> > proc.GetInControl("MyIn").DoControl(1.); -> DoControlAsFloat(proc,
> > "MyIn", 1.)   (I'm using wrong function names, I know)
> I like this idea, i think we can make the delta smaller with this kind
> of things.
> > And maybe we should be refactoring In|OutControl to make it more similar
> > to BaseTypedIn|OutControl interfaces also in trunk. However I'd like to
> > see code on that issue.
> >
> > All this belongs to the "start making the delta smaller" approach.

The first thing to make delta smaller is to make Get*Controls() and
Get*Control() not to use the control directly ( ex.
bla_proc.GetInControls().Get("control").DoControl() )
With the last patch i've sent many of these are solved using external free
So, please, check the last patch and comment about it.
About the branch, i think it's a good idea but if we have no other chance, i
agree with david about the problems merging a branch into a developed trunk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clam-project.org/pipermail/clam-devel-clam-project.org/attachments/20080718/88538021/attachment.html>

More information about the clam-devel mailing list