[interfacekit] Re: BLooper - PLEASE look at...

"Axel D=F6rfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > When Adi and I were talking about this, I found myself wishing 
> > > for 
> > > wait=3D5Ffor=3D5Fmultiple=3D5Fobjects() -- I think that's the first 
> > > time 
> > > I've 
> > > ever 
> > > really wanted a Windows API available on BeOS. =3D3DP  Just out of 
> > > curiousity, Axel, how much work do you think that will require in 
> > > the 
> > > kernel=3D3F
> > That would be interesting. Though, it wouldn't harm, if we don't 
> > have 
> > it for R1. We could do the polling thing for the time being and 
> > replace 
> > it as soon as the kernel provides the functionality.
> 
> I am not sure it would be good to have that BLooper functionality in 
> R1 
> - it would be nice if not needed that you could select a) the port it 
> should poll on, and b) how long it should wait for an incoming 
> message.
> Both things would be crucial for a good performance, but would 
> require 
> additional API which had a very short life-span.

Mmh, I don't see why this should be necessary. For R1 the new methods 
would be private anyway, and used only by BWindow (and one or two other 
classes). For the time being BLooper::task=5Flooper() would be 
implemented so, that BWindow behaves properly (the other concerned 
classes, too, of course), and for R2 only a minor change has to made to 
BLooper::task=5Flooper(), so that it works optimally in all cases.

I would favor this approach over implementing (i.e. cloning and 
extending) task=5Flooper() in all BLooper derived classes and needing to 
completely change them for R2.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: