[CF-Devel] Protocol Questions (Server to Client)

[pstolarc at theperlguru.com]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Mark Wedel wrote:

>
     
     
      pstolarc at theperlguru.com
      
       wrote:
     
     >
     
     
     >>
     
      but almost.  And I know, the sprintf with only constants isn't really
     
     >>
     
      necessary, but it seems more readable to me.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Any reason you just can't redefine DATADIR in the case of the CF_WIN32 
     
     >
     
     instance?  Can't remember if DATADIR is used for other stuff, but there are 
     
     >
     
     probably other areas that may use some unix type features.
     
     
Yes.  Windows has it's own DATADIR defined somewhere that does something
else.  I don't know what it does.  It's in some standard library.  It
didn't appear to be worth the time it would take to work around.

>
     
     
     >
     
       Given the number of #ifdef blocks you current have, proabably inlining it is 
     
     >
     
     OK.  If there were cases where a large portion of the file was ifdef'd, then 
     
     >
     
     maybe a seperate file.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Also, my personal opinion is that #ifdef/else isn't too bad for good sized 
     
     >
     
     blocks.  What I found annoying in the server code is cases where you had a bunch 
     
     >
     
     of things like
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     ifdef <few lines> else <few lines> endif
     
     >
     
     <few more lines of code that are common
     
     >
     
     ifdef <few lines> else <few lines> endif
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       etc, such that it became really hard to read through the function to see what 
     
     >
     
     it was doing, because not only did you have to try to parse the code, but you 
     
     >
     
     also had to parse the ifdefs.  So I tended to prefer longer ifdef/else/endif, 
     
     >
     
     even if they included some common code.
     
     
I don't think I did that to the server source.  It's probably some other
Win32 guy.  We all look alike.

Anyway, I'll keep that in mind.

>
     
     Well, beyond unix and windows, the next big one would probably be macos.  I know 
     
     >
     
     the newer versions are more unix like, so maybe won't be as much of a problem. 
     
     >
     
     Dunno -it really depends on the next person who tries to port it to something new.
     
     
I would guess MacOS would build from the Unix source, as there is no GUI
code in the common files, but that's just a guess.  

-Philip