johnbue at msn.com
Thu Sep 27 12:50:45 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
Daniel Harman writes:
> If you've seen all this before then its probably not very
> interesting, but when I first saw it I was impressed.
Well, it's an interesting treatment, but it appears to be a funky
way of doing aggregation. The funkiness shows up in that it uses
templates, which tend to produce code bloat. Why not simply
encapsulate the behavior of the base 'class' in a component and
aggregate it in the derived 'class'? It gives you one copy of the
two sets of code and leaves aggregation control in the child
component, which is the essential point of the template approach.
Yes, it's more aggravating because you're forced to strictly
separate the functionality of the two components, create interfaces,
QueryInterface and all that gubbage. But it gives you a far cleaner
separation of code. Properly designed, you have a greater
opportunity for component and contract reuse.
It is my understanding that C# makes all this COM component stuff
much easier to deal with. So I'm told by my old team at Microsoft.
And that should make COM component development that much more
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev