neumann at wu-wien.ac.at
Mon May 12 18:39:44 CEST 2003
On Monday 12 May 2003 17:36, Uwe Zdun wrote:
> This corresponds to the idea of making filters etc themselves objects.
> I like this idea from a conceptual point of view. Implementation-wise
> it could be a larger undertaking ... the problem is that these
> "collections" manage different things at the C-code level (Tcl_Obj*s, Cmds,
> etc) in lists and hashtables and that some parts are not under control of
> XOTcl's C code (children are managed by Tcl in Namespaces). So really a 2.0
> issue :)
same opinon here; we had already some discussion some time ago about
transforming e.g. methods into objects, etc. We did a big step in this direction when
we implemented our "light-weight objects", which require namespaces
etc on demand (please note, that lightweight is relative; see also
http://media.wu-wien.ac.at/download/mem.log). But still, objects
are costly in terms of time and memory.
I am pondering since a while about a simple thing: transforming
xotcl parameters into objects. Conceptually, this is quite simple, but
has disadvantages from benchmarks etc, whenmultiple objects are created
on the fly, in situations where the users expects one class/object to be created.
Maybe we are able to provide object facades, or to create these interface
objects on demand, while keeping low-fat memory strucutures....... but this
will take a few releases...
Univ.Prof. Dr.Gustaf Neumann
Abteilung für Wirtschaftsinformatik
WU-Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Wien
More information about the Xotcl