Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Mark L. Fussell" <email@example.com>
- To: Sean Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:44:47 -0800 (PST)
[Did you post these replies also? I don't yet see them from the list.]
> Mark Fussell wrote:
> > ... If you split a file you
> > need to duplicate the inter-file method-name symbols. You may also need
> > to duplicate some helper methods.
Sean Russell wrote:
> Is this significant? Probably, but it isn't severe. The following is a
> list of a set of trivial classes...
[showing no class size difference when splitting].
What I was referring to is if the classes have to call between each other
when they are split. So test3 calls test4's method and test4 calls
test3's method. The number of cross-calls will increase the total file
size because of the duplicated symbols (method names) in the table.
But as you indicated: the less coupled the classes the better the design,
so this duplication "penalty" is actually a reasonable metric on how well
a large class was divided into logical smaller classes.
> If you can look at your code and see Objects, you should go ahead and extract
> them out into smaller classes. OOP is going to benefit you and anyone
> else who is going to be reading and modifying your code in six months.
Although I would normally encourage this I think we are [or I am] on a
slightly more esoteric "size-management" optimization topic for a very
particular case of an ultra-small, fast-download, XML parser. In any
other case, ignore what I said about file sizes and just design really
nice clean OO software.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)