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

"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Axel D=F6rfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.

I think I agree with you - but then, I would really use your API change 
to have a priority attached to every incoming port. The port with the 
highest priority should be the port that the looper sits on.
Now, the only thing missing would be a way to set the timeout of that 
port. Of course, it might be enough to provide a standard value for it. 
B_INFINITE_TIMEOUT if there is only one port to wait for, some other 
value if there are more.

Adios...
   Axel.

Other related posts: