I would do the thin Objective C mode, partially since all Chrome
developers know C++. I could debug that code or make changes to it if
I was doing something that affected it, but I would have a much harder
time with Objective-C.
Brett
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Scott Hess <sh...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> I'm refactoring my Omnibox code towards something I'm willing to put
> up for review, and am realizing that I need to find a way to rule on
> whether I should have thick Objective-C helpers or thin ones. Say for
> instance that I have an NSTableView, I'll need a data source for that,
> which needs to be an Objective-C object. At the thin extreme, I can
> put the minimum amount of code in that object to fulfill the data
> source protocol, plus anything I need for handling delegation or
> target/action type things, which leaves setup and wiring in the C++
> code. At the thick extreme I would push most of the Objective-C code
> into the Objective-C object, and have the C++ code call into that. Or
> there's something in the middle.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Right now it's somewhere in the middle. I don't create Objective-C
> methods solely to be called from C++, nor C++ methods solely to be
> called from Objective-C, except for cases where either would need to
> poke through the encapsulation boundary.
>
> Thanks,
> scott
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
