Date: 03 Jun 2003 00:08:31 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VFS: C99 sparse format for struct vfsops Message-ID: <1054595310.1641.57.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com> In-Reply-To: <27696.1054681432@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <27696.1054681432@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 00:03, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <1054590840.1641.12.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com>, Paul Richards wr > ites: > >On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > >> I thought the point in KOBJ was that it was extensible so you could > >> KLD load stuff which added more methods ? > > > >Not exactly. It allows for dynamic binding of methods that implement a > >specified interface. It gives you 2 things mainly: > > > >The possible methods available in an interface are fixed, they're > >defined in the .m files. > > Then I don't see the justification for the hashing & caching when it > can be resolved at compile time... kobj basically provides us with some OO type functionality. The linkage can't be determined at compile time since you don't know what methods an object is going to implement or what actual function implements a particular method until the object is instantiated, it's sort of late binding. -- Tis a wise thing to know what is wanted, wiser still to know when it has been achieved and wisest of all to know when it is unachievable for then striving is folly. [Magician]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1054595310.1641.57.camel>