Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Sean Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:10:37 -0800 (PST)
On 14 Dec, Mark L. Fussell wrote:
> [Did you post these replies also? I don't yet see them from the list.]
Uh, probably not. Sorry.
> > 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.
Yes, especially when we're dealing with web distributed packages.
The argument to not use jar files because of their non-portability (in
that not everybody supports them yet) has weight, but will again become
increasingly insignificant as platforms become Java 1.1 conformant.
Unless I am mistaken, jar file support is part of the required core Java
|.. --------------------- Sean Russell ----------------------
<|> firstname.lastname@example.org <-> http://jersey.uoregon.edu/ser
/|\ ------- [ Software Engineer ] --------
/| [ PGP info available from my web site ]