Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Reply to message

* = Required fields
* Subject
* Body
Send reply to
Author (directly in email)
Please type the letters in the image above.

Original message

Author hlellelid
Full name Hans Lellelid
Date 2007-11-16 06:44:57 PST
Message David Z├╝lke wrote:
> How bout something wicked such as having method bodies in an array, with
> each line having a unique ID ;) That would be hax0r.
> But seriously - yes, we need something like that. The more modular it
> is, the better. But as you pointed out, it could be a bitch to design -
> maybe we need alien technology from outer space to do that. Not quite
> sure... :>
> David
> Am 16.11.2007 um 14:58 schrieb Ron Rademaker:
>> Hans Lellelid wrote:
>>> It becomes a little less clear to me when I think about a builder
>>> advertising that it wants to override / customize other methods. I
>>> guess the question is what happens when several builders want to all add
>>> custom behavior into the save method?
>> I guess we could reevaluate the way classes are generated completely.
>> Instead of passing along some string by reference and appending code
>> in a function we could model the classes that are being generated and
>> let the builders fill the model. Finally, some toString function on
>> the model class creates the actual code. That way you don't have to
>> create an entire function in one sweep but you can add, remove and
>> change stuff later. Obviously, the model is gonna be a challenge to
>> design :)

Yeah, that's a possibility. I looked into that a bit when considering
the initial design. In the end, I opted for the current system, because
I think it's a lot easier for people (including myself) to understand.
I worry about completely abstracted code generation being really
difficult to get in there and change :)

Maybe the initial pass continues to use a template-based approach and we
look at revamping this based on usage / needs.