[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: <ravi@hypatia>
- Subject: RE>Waldo interface
- From: heh <heh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 May 90 12:05:47
- Cc: <xtech@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?
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 >
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.