Well I'm coming to the end of an absolutley brutal day so I can not vouch
for the clarity of any comments I make here
>
> Item 1 - instantiation would probably (and most importantly) cache values
> such as movie duration, so we might need to have a special handler which
> does this more than once for those situations where we swap the member.
Or another object that manages swapping of the members.
> Special handler? Aha. Warning bells ring in my head. (See below)
> I have problems with items 2 and 3. These should either be public
> (in which
> case, just use the standard quicktime sprite access calls:
> sprite(s).movierate and so on), or private.
I missed that one. I do agree with Brennan on this. Particularly with item
3. This looks like one of those instances where you got to ask "Why would
another object need access to the getCurrentPosition method?" Would it be
perhaps better to have any of that functionality pushed into the QT object
or perhaps I need another object to manage this functionality (More on that
later). With item 2 (the monitorPlaybackStatus method) I would more likely
view that as an internal/private method that is not made available to other
objects... Depends really on it's required functionality.
> > I was thinking about the slider/qt thing last night, and
> realised that QT
> > has a slider object as a child (the 'show controller' button)
> whereas I had
> > been thinking in terms of the inheritance working the other way
> around...
Or perhaps any widget that communicates with the QT object and vice versa
should be managed as a group. Often times I use widget manager object to do
this and have it communicate with other objects. It has been my experience
though that the overhead in writing that object only pays off when you have
complex interaction between your widgets. In this particular case it may be
overkill.
> > Anyway, I ended up unable to decide how to put the 'code family tree'
> > together as a result... which should inherit which? Is this a common
> > problem? <g>
>
> YES!
Oh my god yes! Conceptually, this area is the most challenging for me.
> I've sweated over details like that for hours. When I get to a
> solution, I'm
> always amazed how simple it seems, and how long it eluded me. Building an
> optimal inheritance hierarchy is no mean task, making great demands on
> creativity as well as logic. Unfortunately, the solutions are often so
> banale, that no-one can appreciate the effort. We're so
> misunderstood! (But
> the pay is ok).
Well put. Brennan is so much better at explaining these things then I could
ever hope to be.
I have a few more comments but my wife is pushing me out the door (yes we
work together in the same office). If I get time tomorrow (Unlikely... still
have the same brutal project to work on) I will try to add a few more
comments.
hatsa...
ck
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
