Re: check sum (Re: [Jsynthlib-devel] Okay... so why can't I edit a patch with this?)

[Joe E. <jo...@em...>]

Bill Zwicky wrote:

> Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
>> I think that we'd have more bug-free checksum methods if they were 
>> centralized in core.*. If there's a bug in one of the checksum 
>> methods that was being used by multiple synthdrivers, it would get 
>> noticed and fixed sooner.
>
> How many buggy checksummers do we have now?

I don't know because: A) some checksum methods might have bugs that only 
show up 1 in 128 or 1 in 16384 times. B) the author of the synthdriver 
might have just copied a buggy one from another synthdriver and just 
coded around it.

I'm assuming that your point is: "It's not that difficult to write a 
checksum method", and you're right. However, if enough of them are 
written from scratch, buggy ones *will* happen. Time will cause the 
improbable to be inevitable.

> What are the odds that fixing a "bug" in a common checksummer will 
> actually break some other synth?

The only way, that I can see, that would cause it to break another 
synthdriver is if that synthdriver *accounted* for the bug with its own 
code. But two wrongs don't make a right. I bug in a checksum method is a 
mistake. Trying to solve the problem by tweaking *other* parts of the 
synthdriver (instead of the checksum method) is *also* a mistake.

> Does anyone actually *have* the problem you're solving?

Well, I think the XML driver will. It's going to need (or want) to be 
able to choose checksum methods with a text string.

More importantly, the problem I'm trying to solve is one of long-term 
code maintenance. Right now, there could be dozens of copies of 
someone's original checksum algorithm. What if a seldom-occuring bug is 
found in the original? I doubt that anybody is going to go find all of 
the other synthdrivers that copied its method.

(My apologies to non-native English speakers at this point, because I 
should probably stop here, but I want to add a couple more points).

I'm also trying to solve future code-bloat. I'm looking forward to the 
day when JSL has support for 1,000+ devices. Even if we are lucky and 
*every* developer in the entire future of JSL writes flawless checksum 
methods, then our best possible outcome is needlessly-bloated code and a 
lot of duplicated effort.

Lastly, having centralized checksum methods doesn't *prohibit* having 
specialized ones, anyway. We could put the 4 or 5 most-common ones in 
core.* and still allow individual synthdrivers to put in their own.

- Joe