On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 22:11, Gregor N. Purdy wrote: > Brian -- > > > > None of these are issues with the approach I've been working on / > > > advocating. I'm hoping we can avoid these altogether. > > > > > > > I think this is a cool concept, but it seems like a lot of overhead with > > the string lookups. > > I'm hoping we can keep the string lookups in order to sidestep the > versioning issue. They can be made pretty cheap with a hashtable or search > tree, and the lookups only happen once when we load. And, we may even be > able to create the tree or hash table structure as part of the oplib.so, > so we don't even have to pay to construct it at run time. I guess I'm > making the provisional assumption that by the type we go out and > dynamically load the oplib, a few op lookups by name won't be too big a > deal if we are smart about it. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'd like > to see it in action before passing judgement on it. > > [snip stuff about versioning] > > > Thoughts? Or am I too tired to be sending email? :) > > I think its a fine suggestion. I'm just hoping we don't end up having to > go there. I like the simplicity of doing things by name. We don't have to > care what else happens to an oplib as long as the ops we cared about are > still there. >
After thinking about it more, you're right, this is nicer :) Brian > > Regards, > > -- Gregor >
