Archive for 6. October 2006

Thoughts about generalizing packet related abstractions
Hello Everybody, Recently I’ve been doing some thinking about how to generalize the packet abstraction. Till now we had a single (partial) P2P protocol implementation. I’d like that we now start (more...)
Re: Re: Re: Getting rid of setters/getters?
Hi Atul, You are again making a good point, this time about how and who generates this PacketInfo struct from a Packet object. Your way of thinking complements with what I (more...)
Re: Is calitko Multi-threaded?
Calitko is currently not multithreaded. I agree that static should be avoided. Declaring static PacketInfo *packetInfo and using it as an auto variable is actually crap! I've deleted the static (more...)
Re: Re: Re: Re: patch to refactor away Packet::name
Hi Sebastien, I think that it would not be a problem to create a package "Calitko Developer Tools" in the files section at SourceForge and provide a zip file for download (more...)
Re: About indent and similar tools
I used tabs in the code snippet, so the alignment you'll see is most likely not what I intended. I've edited the post and you can see the correct version (more...)
About indent and similar tools
Hi Everybody, Hi Atul, I do give it a try! I also tried out astyle. indent has a huge amount of configuration options and I'm trying to find the configuration that most (more...)
Re: Re: Re: Re: MS Visual Studio 2003 project
Turns out that after applying the patch I forgot to do brz add calitko.sln calitko.vcproj. Sorry for that! The files are now comitted in revno 55! Peter Dimov wrote:Thanks Valeriy! Comitted (more...)
Re: Re: Getting rid of setters/getters?
My replies in bold ... Peter Dimov wrote: Hi Atul, I was actually asking myself that exact question when I was designing the Packet class. Getters are necessary in any case to extract (more...)
Is calitko Multi-threaded?
Dear all, And if so, we have to be extra careful about using static in methods.... It came to my mind as we are linking with -lpthread. ( reference -> QVariant PacketModel::data (const (more...)
Re: Re: Re: patch to refactor away Packet::name
Hello, i have been following the discussions, did not really understand what you guys are talking about but anyway: here is one idea which might be silly, but i say it (more...)

Next Page »