On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:00:10AM +0200, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@> wrote:
> >> I imagine that base classes will eventually support wider applications
> >> (after a while).
> >
> > First, I don't believe they will.
>
> I find this view interesting.
Really? Why?
> > the library revolves around SQLObject-the main class.
>
> It seems that this information can indicate different software
> design preferences.
Definitely!
> > I don't see what wider application would be possible.
>
> I guess that such a view can be adjusted if existing software limitation
> will be reconsidered.
You guessed wrong. This view can be adjusted with working code but
not with discussions.
> >> * Would you like to omit the CTAS command class for any special run
> >> time configurations?
> >
> > That part of the discussion seems to be meaningless without code to discuss.
>
> I can become concerned that software extensions (like my suggestion)
> can influence run time characteristics of related components
> in undesirable ways.
After that you can rethink your API or implementation.
Currently you're trying to optimize non-existing code which is
meaningless. The software engineering rules say: first code, then debug,
then optimize. It's easier to optimize correct code than to correct
optimized code.
> >> Will the interest grow for the application of any more design patterns?
> >
> > You can pack them into the code you're writing.
>
> I would prefer to clarify remaining software development concerns
Waterfall design is the thing of the past. You better start coding
refactoring your design when needed.
> also with the help of development tools around the unified modelling language.
Sure, go on. Don;t forget to publish the diagrams and explain what
they mean in simple words.
> Regards,
> Markus
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytman https://phdru.name/ ph...@ph...
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
|
