Hi Andrew, > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:30 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > Hi Andrew, Alan, > > > > I would really like some review on this issue as soon as you can > > manage it. I have just a few more things to migrate over to svn in > > order to get Windows port into M4. > > Just got back into the office after a couple of days out:
Welcome back! > The only real comment I have is that you change is > inconsistent between AsynchIO and AsynchAcceptor. Ok. > AsynchAcceptor you've changed to use an AysnchAcceptorPrivate and > delegation (which is the same as the pattern we use in some > other places > in th IO code). In AsynchIO you use an abstract base class instead. > Given that each approach is fundamentally the same (at least as far as > machine operations) I'd have preferred them to use the same approach. Good point. > Did you have a reason for doing these closely connected classes > differently? There was very little to do with the acceptor and it was easier and quicker to do it as I did. I'll change it so all are consistent once I finish the rest of the merging into trunk. Thanks for the feedback! -Steve
