[gmpi] Re: low level API - Abstract Factory summary
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:45:47 -0800
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 12:27:20PM -0500, Ron Kuper wrote:
> I'd like to see us cherry pick the best ideas from COM, but still keep
> the interface as streamlined as possible. For starters this could mean
> getting rid of reference counting and limiting the set of interfaces to
> avoid many small ephemeral objects floating around.
>
> In C++, I'm thinking something along these lines:
>
> struct GMPI_Object
> {
> GMPI_RESULT GetInterface( UUID interfaceID, void** obj ) = 0;
> };
>
> struct GMPI_Factory : public GMPI_Object
> {
> GMPI_RESULT Create( UUID objectClass, GMPI_Object** object ) = 0;
> GMPI_RESULT Destroy( GMPI_Object* object ) = 0;
> };
>
> struct GMPI_Plugin : public GMPI_Object
> {
> // Plugin methods go here, such as process, event queue, etc.
> // TBD: derive GMPI_Queue, GMPI_Pin, etc, from GMPI_Object or not?
> };
>
> Every GMPI module (DLL, whatever) then needs to expose one global entry
> point, a "get factory" function.
>
> Thoughts?
Ron, You're singing my song. :) I still want to pay attention to how
the C API tastes, so it's not torture to write in C, but I am willing to
be flexible such that the C++ API is clean, too.
Balance.
Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
