Re: About good practice: Should protected objects be small?

[reinert <reinkor@gmail.com>]

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 8:27:41 PM UTC+2, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 17-10-20 17:50 , reinert wrote:
> > I am testing out using protected objects.
...snip...
> 
> If your concern is the size of a protected object in terms of the number 
> of source lines of code, do remember that you can call out from a 
> protected subprogram to ordinary subprograms, which can be separate. Of 
> course you must then pass the protected private data as parameters to 
> those subprograms. (Sometimes unit-testing tools force this kind of 
> structure anyway, becase the private parts of a PO may not be visible to 
> the tool.)
> 

OK, this is what I did (to avoid a more than 2000 lines protected object body).
However, I would like a stub ("is separate"). Why they did not allow this in a protected object? I thought the reason was that protected objects should be "small" for some good reasons (at least in terms of number of statements).

reinert




> -- 
> Niklas Holsti
> Tidorum Ltd
> niklas holsti tidorum fi
>        .      @       .