[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Directories named *.kdelnk : bug in kfm or KSimpleConfig ?
From:       "Patrick D. Dowler" <dowler () pt1B1106 ! FSH ! UVic ! CA>
Date:       1999-01-06 19:50:59
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 06 Jan 1999, Robert Hagemann wrote:
>I think, we both share the point of view, that KSimpleConfig has to
>check the given file. But I disagree, that kfm ( or any other
>requester) should make use of this feature in 'unexceptional cases'
>It should not 'happen anyway'!
>
>If You use this feature of file checking, which is not the 'core
>competence' of KSimpleConfig, You get a system with high coupling
>which is less maintainable on the long run.
>
>Imagine, in a few months, someone decides to redesign KSimpleConfig.
>Ideally, this job is to look at the responsibilities of the Class
>( the services, that are provided by KSimpleConfig -- the core competence)
> and to handle all error conditions that are possible *in this new
>redesigned context*. In a high coupled system, where kfm uses the
>file analyzing cap's of KSimpleConfig, the old error handling is to
>be taken into consideration additionally! One more thing that is
>going to be forgotten a few months later.

This is a good argument, and one I hadn't considered fully. Having kfm
use KSimpleConfig's error checking makes the error checking part of the
API for the class - future versions by the same name would have to keep
all of the old API or lose source compat, thus gaining an ever larger,
more complex, and less usable API  - a problem some well known
backwards-compatible software giant has :-)

cheers,

--

Patrick Dowler
Victoria, BC

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]