RE>Waldo interface

[heh <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Reply to:   RE>Waldo interface
If XuText, Doc, etc were direct subclasses of Waldo, rather than subclasses of
RestrictedWrapper (one of which they could wrap), a lot of those intermediate
classes could be hidden from clients of Doc...  Is there an important design
reason to subclass rather than wrap?

--------------------------------------
Date: 5/21/90
To: heh 
From: ravi@xxxxxxxxxxx
Received: by xanadu.com; 21 May 90 12:00:46
Received: by xanadu  (4.1/SMI-4.0.2) id AA12884; Mon, 21 May 90 12:00:37 PDT
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 12:00:37 PDT
From: ravi@xxxxxxxxxxx (Ravi Pandya)
Message-Id: <9005211900.AA12884@xanadu >
To: heh
Cc: xtech
In-Reply-To: heh's message of 21 May 90 10:59:24 <9005211802.AA12135@xanadu >
Subject: Waldo interface

This issue is related to the issue of making the front end separable
from the back end over a socket. There aren't actually that many
classes that can be privatized, though, since any class that defines
new protocol must be public, as must any superclass of a public class.
This leaves only Map, DirectRecord, and MappedRecord. I can only
suggest splitting them up into smaller files.
	--ravi