[haiku-development] Re: app_server patch

  • From: Michael Oliveira <michaelvoliveira@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT)

Is there any plan to include it into Alpha 3?

Looncaz did a great job here...

Michael Vinícius de Oliveira

----- Mensagem original -----
> De: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
> Para: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 
> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 13 de Abril de 2011 11:38
> Assunto: [haiku-development] Re: app_server patch
> On 2011-04-13 at 09:47:35 [+0200], Joseph Groover <looncraz@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>>  I have completed a (hopefully) fully working patch along the lines
>>  mentioned before.
>>  You can find it at the following URL along with some more detailed
>>  information for those interested.
>>  http://looncraz.tripod.com/haiku/
>>  At this point I haven't created a ticket, but will do so when I have 
> time.
>>  This patch is not yet finalized and is based on changes I made to
>>  r41206.  The patch file is ~500kb.
> Mentioning such a figure doesn't help to motivate anyone to look at it. You 
> should at least also mention that most of that weight stems from an added 
> bitmap resource and that the code part of the patch is only around 2k 
> lines. I haven't looked at why you added the bitmap. Your patch summary 
> doesn't say so.
>>  ALL opinions wanted!
> First of all, most people prefer not to have to download and unzip a patch 
> before being able to look at it. Also, Trac's patch viewer is rather nice 
> IMO, so I'd recommend using it for larger patches (anything longer than a 
> few hundred lines).
> I'm not an app server guy, so I'll only comment on the build system 
> part: 
> The Decorator rule you introduced is mostly a copy of the Addon rule. 
> There's no need for the code duplication; the Addon rule could just be 
> invoked. Other than that there's nothing that makes the Decorator rule 
> decorator specific. I believe the Addon rule is lacking a parameter for 
> resources only because there have been only few add-on's that need them (if 
> there are any at all) and calling the AddResources rule manually isn't much 
> trouble either. I don't see any reason not to add such a parameter, though.
> CU, Ingo

Other related posts: