Re: [Libbt-devel] restructuring

[Alien <ali...@us...>]

Op donderdag 24 februari 2005 05:33, schreef Elliott Mitchell:
> >From: Alien <ali...@us...>
> > it looks like the benc types are all in types.h and as i understand that
> > most things started there, this is not how things should be:
> >
> > I intend to make the benc types and functions use benc instead of bt
> > prefix. combined with making the bencObject_t a union instead of how it
> > is now. furthermore, it has seemed to me that this allocated item that's
> > in every benc type looks useless. it seems that this type should be
> > filled out in one burst, to improve efficiency, (especially if frontends
> > would use multithreading). of course i could be wrong, so tell me.
>
> Sorry for the slow commentary, my BT energy has been spent elsewhere. My
> copy of the tree is also somewhat behind due to this.
>
> Unfortunatly a nice simple answer to the above two. NO.
>
> bt vs benc, look at what those structures are holding. They're holding
> digested values, not raw benc data. So bt* seems more appropriate to me.
>
>
> You clearly didn't examine how btObject is used closely enough though.
> You missed that the btObject is at the top of the structure, no pointers
> involved. They are allocated as a single blob. btObject has data that is
> required to be present in all of them, for which constructions of this
> sort make sense.
>
> Spend the time to look at them, and don't touch it until you understand
> why it was done. Key idea, this is object-oriented programming in C.
>
> My tendancy is to have the type information be a pointer to a jump table
> (notably the first thing being the deallocation function), rather than an
> enum. The current way works though.

very well, i won't touch it