Hi Robert
On 8/10/06, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> over the next few days, i'm going to have some
general design-type
> questions as i try to restructure a project i'm
working on, so i'm
> hoping i don't wander too far from the mandate of the
list.
Goodie !! I hope this will be as fun for us as it is for
you !!
>
> on this current project, there is frequent use of
what i call
> "catchall" header files. rather than have
individual source files
> pull in just those header files they need, a monster
"catchall.h" file
> is created that contains almost all project-related
inclusions, so
> that source files need only:
>
> #include "catchall.h"
>
> sure, it's convenient, but there are also some
obvious downsides.
> the simple question -- is there a defensible rationale
for this
> approach? i personally don't like it and would prefer
source files to
> be more selective, but the argument i keep hearing is,
"it's more
> convenient."
I use a similar design architecture in my project.
I think the convinience factor comes in when the project is
REALLY
large and, more impostantly, spread out.
In fact, in my project, I have a a heirarchy of these
"catchall" header files.
Eg. A module has a catchall file for all its sub-modules, A
component
has a catchall header file for all its modules, an interface
for is
components, a product for all its interface and
components.... so on
and so forth.
I can't imagine being selective with the header files as I
would end
up with tens of 100s of LOC of only header file declaration.
Not to mention the tediousness of the selection procedure.
--
Raseel.
http://osd.byethost8.com
http://raseel.livejourn
al.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
"unsubscribe linux-c-programming" in
the body of a message to majordomo vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vge
r.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|