ReadWriteStream Issues
Anthony Adachi
adachipro at yahoo.com
Tue May 6 06:05:31 UTC 2003
Earlier I wrote:
> Or am I missing something hear?
(I meant to say "here", by the way)
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> Yes. What you are missing is that the Stream
hierarchy is a couple
> of decades overdue for refactoring.
Okay, that speaks volumes. The picture is staring to
become clearer now. I made the opposite assumption:
because the many of the standard classes are a couple
of decades old they have been refactored and refined
to a state of near perfection and equilibrium.
> It would actually make more sense
> for ReadWriteStream to inherit from ReadStream;
I agree. When I was first looking at the WriteStream
to ReadWriteStream hierarchy and their descendants I
was confused as to why this parent-child arrangement
was chosen. I assumed there must of been some really
good reason for this. Of which I could not see and was
simply not able to recognize it's brilliance.
>there are lots of methods
> inherited by WriteStream but not actually useful to
it, just so that
> ReadWriteStream can inherit them.
Hmm... More confusion for readers like myself who are
new to Squeak. Less clutter and more clarity would be
good for all.
> If we suppose that someone thought it really
mattered for a WriteStream
> to always appear to be #atEnd, so that nobody
_tried_ reading from it
> even if they thought it was an input stream, then
we have to explain
> why whoever implemented #on:from:to: for
WriteStream thought it
> *didn't* matter.
It sounds like to me that a larger refactoring is in
order. As you suggest a rearrangement of whom inherits
from what might to lead to cleaner, easier to
understand system. An opportunity, to get rid of those
rather useless methods you cite.
Anthony
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|