ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/02/28/14:08:10

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:46:44 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
Subject: Re: setup.exe rebase patch
<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AADC AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: Cygwin-Apps <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Mail-followup-to: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
Cygwin-Apps <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Message-id: <20020228184644.GB1980@hp.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AADC AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>


On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 02:22:56AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason AT tishler DOT net] 
> > > 0) Check that it hasn't been rebased already.
> > 
> > What is the purpose of the above?  I already rebase DLLs into 
> > their previous space during reinstalls, if they still fit.
> Efficiency, it seemed obvious to not rebase already rebased .dll's. I
> recall you saying that it was fast, but I don't see it scaling to 100's
> of .dll's - which we are heading towards.

Don't worry, I'm no longer advocating rebasing everything over and
over again.  However, I think that we must re-rebase a DLL during a
re-install for the following reasons:

    o determine whether or not the image size has changed (and act
    o actually rebase the DLL after copying out of the archive

So, I already check that the DLL has been rebased before, but I will
still rebase this particular DLL (but not all DLLs currently on the
system).  I don't see anyway around this and feel that this is as
efficient as possible.

> > Nevertheless, if you feel strongly, then I will change my perspective.
> It's not about feeling. It's about understanding. I agree that having
> the serialisation in the classes themselves is not great, as things get
> baggy. I hope that you agree that having external classes that require
> access to private data (ie config_file_writer) for serialisation is
> also not great because it breaks encapsulation (friends don't always
> break encapsulation, but in this case, IMO they do). The Memento class
> is designed to provide a solution to both issues.

Thanks for pointing me to the Memento pattern.  I will investigate it
and try to come up with a better solution.


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019