[interfacekit] Re: BLooper extensions

"Axel D=F6rfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I am not too fond towards that extension to BLooper. It's only very 
> rarely needed to do something like this in real life, so it's not 
> urgently needed right now. We own BLooper and BWindow, so we can just 
> implement task=3D5Flooper() two times, I wouldn't have any problems 
> with 
> that.

Fully agreed.

> For the future, when we have something like the now often mentioned 
> wait=3D5Ffor=3D5Fmultiple=3D5Fobjects(), I would prefer something like:
> BLooper::AddPort(port id);

Sounds good. Maybe can be even
  BLooper::AddPort(port id, float priority =3D 0.5)
if that can be supported.

> along with an extended form of BLooper::GetMessageFromPort() which 
> specifies the port number or something like this.

Why would that be needed=3F Or do you intend it to be BLooper private=3F

> BTW the original BWindow *does* overload BLooper::task=3D5Flooper() so 
> I 
> think binary compatibility might require us to do that, too (windows 
> that inherit from BWindow rely on it).

That should be the least of the problems. It can be implemented to 
immediately and only call the base class version.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: