From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e66fe8b30e3ee2c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Simon Wright Subject: Re: Rep clause problems, was Re: S'Write and How To Count Bytes Date: 2000/10/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 678689831 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 References: <39D9DD58.86538032@acm.org> <39DA256D.D854277B@acm.org> <39DDCD18.D925057@acm.org> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 970936344 nnrp-10:5051 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 Organization: At Home Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Date: 2000-10-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > > I'm assuming that your tagged types are in your application domain, > > not the comms domain? if the former, I've found that messages rarely > > map at all to application classes; if the latter, the message set > > rarely maps straightforwardly to any sort of inheritance tree. > > Not sure what you mean here. Let me see if I get close. All my messages > have a predefined message header that contains things like a sync pattern, > number of bytes, message identifier, yada, yada, yada. Then all the > "application specific" data content follows this message header. The tree > is very flat - although I suppose one day there may be some levels to it. Oh, yes, I see what you mean now. I was thinking of the relationships between different messages, but you're (for now) more interested in the face that they all derive from Message. That makes a lot more sense than the vague picture I'd come up with!