Re: [Oorexx-devel] Removing the table APIs from the API set.

[Rick M. <obj...@gm...>]

I did discover that Mark is using the table apis in a couple of places
in the oodialog code.  However, since he's using strings as indexes, a
directory would probably be more appropriate (and easier) to use.

Rick

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM, David Ashley <da...@us...> wrote:
> I agree with your analysis. I can not see that I would ever use the table
> APIs. Mainly because they do not map to typical C/C++ structure analogs.
>
> Thanks,
> W. David Ashley
> IBM Systems and Technology Group Lab Services
> Open Object Rexx Team
> Mobile Phone: 512-289-7506
>
>
> "Rick McGuire" ---09/26/2008 11:54:37 AM---The exercise of writing test
> cases for the various APIs was an
>
> "Rick McGuire" <obj...@gm...>
>
> 09/26/2008 09:40 AM
>
> Please respond to
> Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List <oor...@li...>
>
> To
> "Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List"
> <oor...@li...>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Oorexx-devel] Removing the table APIs from the API set.
> The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an
> interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity to reassess whether
> APIs belonged in the set and also pointed out some holes where
> additional APIs should be provided.
>
> In the process of doing this, I started to question whether the Table
> set of APIs even belong on the list.  The initial list of APIs was
> created be drawing upon the old (non-documented) internal object API
> augmented by my best guess on what additional operations might be
> needed.  As things progressed, I've eliminated a few of the old API
> holdovers because they didn't really provide any added value or
> overlapped with other means of doing the same things.  NewObject() and
> NewInteger() are two examples.
>
> One rule of thumb I've started applying to the APIs is to recognize
> that most of the operations in the APIs can be accomplished using the
> generic SendMessage() API call.  However, the API versions make it
> easier (and more efficient) for the C programmer.  for example,
> ArrayAt() allows a size_t value to be specified for the array index
> rather than require the size be converted to a Rexx object first,
> which would be the case if you had to use SendMessage().
>
> If you apply that rule of thumb to the table APIs (TablePut(),
> TableAt(), TableRemove(), NewTable(), and IsTable()), the only one of
> these that doesn't map directly into a SendMessage() call is
> IsTable(), and that one is only required because we have the other
> set.  I'm proposing that these APIs and the associated RexxTableObject
> type be removed from the API set because there's no real added value
> to having these APIs.
>
> Rick
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oor...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oor...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>