[openbeosstorage] Re: Kernel Interface Typedefs
- From: Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:40:23 -0700
> > Okay, I understand your point now. We shouldn't be including the entire
> > interface, just the types we're using for declarations. Good
> > observation. If we keep the typedef aliases, we can put the ones that
> > need to be public in StorageDefs.Private.h, or something similar.
> Or rather move the public typedefs to SupportDefs.h.
I like the idea of designating them as explicitly private, since that's what
they really are (and really, it'll just be StorageKit::FileDescriptor and
nothing else). Plus, SupportDefs.h really isn't ours to mess around with.
> > [...]
> Well, actually I was under the impression, that the main purpose of those
> types should be to serve as abstractions -- so that they can easily
> changed according to the needs of the new kernel, without changing the SK
> classes -- which some of them fail to be (e.g. StorageKit::Stat).
> Using an abstracting type where actually nothing has to be abstracted from
> is counterproductive, because you need to add conversion functions.
Okay, we're on the same page then. :-) I'd considered making all those types
true abstractions (i.e. classes), but it didn't seem removtely worth the
overhead.
[...]
-Tyler
- References:
- [openbeosstorage] Re: Kernel Interface Typedefs
- From: Ingo Weinhold
Other related posts:
- » [openbeosstorage] Kernel Interface Typedefs
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: Kernel Interface Typedefs
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: Kernel Interface Typedefs
- [openbeosstorage] Re: Kernel Interface Typedefs
- From: Ingo Weinhold