Re: [Somelib] Current design concept

[Thomas M. <tma...@ze...>]

Thomas Matelich wrote:

> Thomas Matelich wrote:
> >  I think this would eliminate the need for base classes, like Karl's did.

NOTE for those of you reading the archive who don't know about Karl's code, it
is another implementation which I could send you if so desired.

Back to my post.  I was being rather moronic with the whole "no base class"
thing.  That is impossible (took me a failed build to realize :).  I don't
know what I was thinking.  Karl's did have base classes just not a "SOME"
one.  So my current tack (I think), is to have no required base class for
SOMEObjects.  Interfaces/Parameters will be optionally specified in the
SOMEClassInfo (I think).

Of course, I could put some sort of interface functionality into a base class,
something like a map of strings to strings.  Base::setParam("name", value)?
The interface spec in SOMEClassInfo would have the names, descriptions, and
types.  We'll see.

--
Thomas O Matelich
Senior Software Designer
Zetec, Inc.
sos...@us...
tma...@ze...