On Aug 31, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote: I think it's much simpler to just add a call to get/set the message limit, say:
int libpd_max_message_length(); void libpd_set_max_message_length(int length);
This doesn't break any current code.
Having to set a custom limit each time is far more tedious then just setting it at startup.
Actually, breakage of current code is a feature as far as I am concerned because it makes people aware of the change, and it should be harmless because it's easy to fix. The language bindings for Java and Objective-C actually became simpler when I updated them for the new version.
I don't think the new signature of libpd_start_message is tedious, really. Essentially, I see two use cases: Either you know an a-priori limit on your message length, in which case there's the tiny extra effort of passing in the limit every time you start a message, or you don't have an a-priori limit, in which case you need to check the length before assembling a message anyway.
Another aspect is API design. One feature of a good API is that it's difficult to use incorrectly. With a separate call for setting the message limit, people will forget that the limit is a consideration. With the current solution, people will briefly contemplate the length of each message they start, which is a good thing.
... but you can simply return an error or print a message complaining when the message is too long. My whole point is that most people won't bother changing the limit and those that do will just pick a larger size with plenty of space anyway. It's too much work to bother setting it EACH and EVERY time. It's far LESS elegant, and dare I say intuitive. It seems like an unnecessary step. [eople that have problems will only run into this once, increase the max size, and then be fine. Why force them to compute a size manually each time when they could just be happily adding objects ... ?
In case, my wrapper will include max message size get/set functions and complain to cout when something is out of bounds.
Cheers, Peter
On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote: On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
For the time being, I have something much simpler in mind: Just take the current call "int libpd_start_message(void)", which returns the current limit, and replace it with "int libpd_start_message(int length)", which takes a parameter indicating the length of the message and returns a nonzero error code if the length is too big.
But this means that new libpd-using apps won't compile with old versions of libpd AND vice-versa.
Well, the vast majority of users won't notice any difference at all because they're using the Android or iOS branch, which I'm updating as I go along. The only people who are affected by this are those who are using the C library directly, and I hope that they'll either be willing to update their code (which should be no more than a two-line change in most cases) or just stick to the current version, which will remain available via git.
In any case, I think everybody understands that this is still a young library that needs to adapt as we gain a better understanding of how people are using it, and the cost of making a small incompatible change is a lot lower than choosing a suboptimal solution for compatibility with an earlier version. This period of youthful innocence is coming to an end, though; the API has been quite stable for quite a while now, and I believe that it'll soon be time to declare it finished. I want to take a critical look at every piece before we officially lock the API, and I won't be afraid to cut things that may turn out to be a burden in the long run. (That's why I floated the idea of getting rid of the simple message assembly mechanism, but it looks like that's here to stay.) Cheers, Peter
Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com