gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [gumpy] refactoring halfway
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:48:32 GMT

Sam Ruby wrote, On 29/04/2003 14.31:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote, On 29/04/2003 12.19:
>>
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> ...
>>> I still have a strong urge to make each class a separate file.  But 
>>> when an entire class is only a dozen lines or so, it does seem better 
>>> to group related classes together.
>>
>> I'm *strongly* against making each class a separate file. IMNSHO 
>> having the Gump OM in a single file is very important for 
>> understanding the code.
> 
> You will find that there are few implementation details that I am 
> strongly for or against.  

;-) I have strong feelings on this instead because I personally had 
difficulty in understanding the Java version, but understood the Python 
one almost immediately, and I fear it goes back to that ;-)

The fact is that separate classes seem to make me loose focus of the 
overall picture, dunno why. Probably it's just me.

> But I did invest a lot of time into building 
> support classes so that it would be possible to express the object 
> module so concisely and expressively.  And so far I am quite pleased 
> with the result.
>
> In Jenny, I opted for major groupings: Project, Workspace, Module, etc. 
>  In the Python version, so far this does not seem to be necessary.

I was and still am impressed by the Python version: I am quite sure that 
it's also due to using SAX instead of the DOM and because of Python's 
conciseness. Also the use of Single, Multi, etc is very intriguing.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message