[Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside - Using
richardpeirson at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 19:29:00 UTC 2009
I agree entirely with the points being made by both Michael and Frank on
In fact, based upon this quote taken from Mr. Cucumber's Proposal #1 in his
Blog, it appears that he does too . . .
7) Accessors for other internals
Of course, the same as stated in 6) is true for all other instances held by
WARequest in its instances. It is never good to let foreigners (classes
outside WARequest) know about implementation details inside another class!
To reming [sic] you: This is what is called encapsulation in the schooldays
This sounds, to me at least, to be suggesting that an accessor should be
implemented only if you want to expose that "implementation detail" for use
by other objects. Am I misinterpreting the statement?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM, <TheSmalltalkBlog at gmx.ch> wrote:
> Once again:
> There is no performance difference between accessors and direct instVars!
> Was all tested by us many years ago, because this issue was brought up as a
> concern. Even dicts for instVars don't really make a difference (very little
> impact and no practical issue compared to the advantages). All for VW only.
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:55:20 +0200
> > Von: Claus Kick <claus_kick at web.de>
> > An: Seaside - general discussion <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside -
> Using getters/setters
> > How much difference does the extra method send make in VW, speedwise? Is
> > this measureable somehow?
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen:
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seaside