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?