[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation

From: Andrew Selkirk
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:02:09 -0500

On December 3, 2001 04:41 am, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> If you're referring to the parsing stuff that was me. You abstraction
> didn't actually bring anything and was broken. I fixed it by putting an FSM
> directly into the classes. Personally, I don't think it makes the classes
> more difficult to read.

That is exactly my point.  There is an FSM directly in the class.  That is a 
logical pattern that can easily be pulled out, especially due to it's size 
(sure it's not large, but it is significant).  The benefit of OOP is that 
every component has it's logical piece that are used to build larger pieces.  
I'm a huge believer of small and simple encapsulations.  And also, by pulling 
it out into a separate class, other projects could reuse it for processing 

I am working on finishing JAF and there is still pieces missing in the 
functionality which I'm addressing.  I was just checking if there was any 
major reasons for the FSM being in there.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]