Hello Martin,
thanks for the detailed writeup.
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Naive question: Why isn't that cross handling code shared between the two
> > files?
> I think it was Guy that asked before about factoring out code that is
> common between the 2 modules. I really dislike that there is identical
> code in both modules. I did start to make a list of types and functions
> that could be shared, but it quickly looked messy. I couldn't even decide
> what to call the new module (was it just to be shared between these 2
> files, or would it likely be useful for someone creating a third module
> like these?).
Maybe call it graph_common.[hc] and move the stuff in there that is of
interest to more than one graphing module.
> rlc_lte_graph.c began as a copy of tcp_graph.c. Initially there were some
> features that I didn't like (or in some cases didn't understand) so cut
> them out. Some of them I have since added back, with improvements copied
> back to the TCP graph. The biggest change is that I didn't want to have
> the control window, so there are various places where I cut out references
> to the controls in the control panel that affects behaviour of the graph,
> then tried to automatically do the sensible thing (e.g. customising the way
> the zoom factors work, or the way the divisions on the axis work).
>
> Even where some functions are textually the same, they often refer to types
> (chiefly the graph struct) that are different between the 2 graphs. This
> could have worked well in C++...
If they are similar, then how about having a common graph structure with (a) task
specific pointer(s) at then end?
> I will stop messing around with the RLC graph soon - it may be easier to
> see how to share what they have in common when it has settled down.
OK, looks like this may become a much larger task than is worth doing -
depending on time and interest.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.