Re: [Netnice-daemon] netniced Linux port

[Sergei M. <mo...@mo...>]

Takashi Okumura wrote:

> thanks for the patch, again. i'll apply it shortly and commit.
> regarding the aesthetic changes, i think we may defer, since
> we'll need cleaning of the code anyway.

Ok, great.

>>In addition, I have some general remarks about our code.
>>First of all, in our header files, we never use common
>>#ifndef/#define technique to prevent errors when the header
>>is included twice in some source (directly or indirectly).
>>I think we should add add such wrappers to each .h file -
>>please see the classes.h patch attached for an example.
> 
> i definitely have no objection about this. just take the current
> code as a prototype.

Ok, great. I will patch the rest of the .h files later today.

>>I am also extremely confused with String, Integer, Boolean,
>>Process, ProcessGroup etc. typedefs defined in the
>>classes.h. It is very hard to tell from the code, whether,
>>say, SocketGroup is an object or a pointer. Things get even
>>more obscure if we decide to pass SocketGroup by reference
>>or store it in an STL container. I would suggest to get rid
>>of these typedefs completely in future.
> 
> i think they are for automatic document generation by doc++. the problem
> is this; although the code is written in C++, the user needed to have a
> class library documentation (for the Java-like scripting language in the
> former version).
> 
> 	http://www.netnice.org/documents/doc/index.html
> 
> i used a lot of typedefs, just to fill this gap. if you have a good
> wayaround for this problem, i'm flexible also about this, as long as
> we provide a complete set of the class description automatically generated
> from the source code at a reasonable cost.

At my work we use doxygen (http://www.doxygen.org) instead of doc++, and
I beleive it's a much better docs generation software. I will create a
sample documentation for the netnice with doxygen and show you the
results, I am sure you will like it.

> btw, do you think the package structure, to support various platforms
> with a package, reasonable enough? for example, we have platform-dependent
> directories and a common directory (netnice-common), with some others
> (doc and contrib). do you like the idea? or, you have better plan?

I think our current directory structure is just fine, the only thing I
don't like is storing SpiderMonkey binaries and headers in the CVS, but
that's not a big deal, anyway. Everything else looks quite reasonable
for me.

Thank you,
Sergei.