|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 07/25/07 00:35
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> ZeldorBlat wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 5:03 pm, Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>>> You're somewhat correct when you say that it's "more or less just for
>>> initialization". It is indeed useful for MORE than just initializing
>>> the object. In fact, it's also pretty good at re-initializing the
>>> object.
>>
>> So are you suggesting that you call the constructor from elsewhere in
>> the class (or even explicitly from outside the class)? That's just
>> poor form. The constructor should be used for one thing only:
>> constructing a new instance of a class.
>
> Yeah - that's why, in my original post, I said that for this particular
> situation, I'm not concerned with what a "good" programmer would do.
>
> My focus is on if it will result in wasted resources and zombie processes.
>
>
>> If you want to "reset" the object, then you separate that out into its
>> own method and call it from the constructor -- similar to what you've
>> done with the Connect() method.
>
> It ain't good form to write redundant code.
> It's wasteful, inefficient, and is abhorrent to good OOP architecture.
> Indeed - the most powerful reason for using OOP is to be able to write a
> process once, and then to use it over and over and over, and in a
> variety of creative ways.
>
> Besides and again... my focus here is on not wasting resources
> unnecessarily.
Read what he said. There is no redundant code.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|