Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 3:14:15 PM, Robert Shearman wrote:
+struct object *permanent_obj[25]; +int permanent_obj_cnt = 0;
This looks a bit ugly to me. Why not just keep track of the individual objects that need to be kept around in named variables?
Because there will be more. Potentially we might have device + symlink for stuff like named pipes, mailslots, serial & paralel ports, etc.
Yes, and these should be created at startup.
I'm not sure yet. Those I need yes, they will be created at startup. I don't know if we can create all the "permanent" objects in one place.
I didn't want to create one extra variable for each permanent object.
There should be less than ten objects altogether, so why not? It doesn't have a level of complexity that the "permanent object" concept does.
And don't want to go there again pls. I had a long discussion with Alexandre about permanent objects. The windows' concept was not acceptable for server.
As this is a compromise to what windows does. I tried to keep it as flexible as it can be.
Granted, but overdesign is as bad as not being flexible enough. Is there a need for this array of permanent objects outside of this patch?
What overdesign? These all combined is less then 20% of what native OM can do. I don't like to fix something for one day, knowing well and good some one will be back later on to fix it again.
Having a global variable is bad. Having 10x the required amount is really bad. Why create them for no good reason?