On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:53:05 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote
I don't follow how my interface was monolithic. Unlike must multiplexor designs I've seen it didn't have nary a mention of sockets, file i/o, etc. It wasn't a singleton, either. Of course, it's just an idea -- I haven't built it -- perhaps it can't be done that way. But believe me, I'd love to see some alternate design suggestions -- I'm not locked into current current design thinking by any means. Any chance you are going to be able to post your
design?
For one thing, absolutely everyone that works with events within that framework needs to know about your multiplexor class, even if they dont actual need notification of low-level events. This is unnecessary.
Well, I guess I don't see how that is the case -- but it's not really important because I was just posting a potential interface for discussion. I'd rather discuss working frameworks and use those as a starting point...
(There is one particular facet of my own implementation that I am unhappy with that prevents me from seriously recommending it as a whole. It is present out of laziness, as I have not yet taken the time to figure out a solution.)
Later today, I think I'm going to post a few examples of a starting point of how I'd like a demultiplexor to look and feel. More details and rationale then.
Ok great. It would be nice if this would get posted to with Wiki -- on new pages or whatever. All the email get's dizzying after awhile... Jeff