Re: Sbuf review at r9331

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2009 10:52 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>
>>> * Declare when needed, for example inside for():
>>>   size_type j;
>>>   for (j=0;j<len_;j++) {
>>
>> Do you mean that this should read
>> for (size_type j=0;j<len_;++j)
>> ?
>
> Yes, I do. IIRC, there are many other examples where variables are
> declared too early. This is a minor flaw, with no real effect in most
> cases, but it is a good habit to develop and becomes important when you
> deal with non-integral variables.
>
>> Next steps, mempooling SBufStore and its backing storage.
>
> MemPooling is needed but does not affect the design or most of the
> implementation code. There is no serious rush to implement this, IMO.

Already done in rev 9366. Had to add a second bool flag to MemBlob,
but that's fine.

> It looks like all the big items in the previews review are closed. Do
> you want me to do another review soon or should I wait for some other
> milestone/event?

Any time you want and have the time to spare, I leave it to your judgement.
There's some pending cleanup: the current TODO list on top of my head is:
- rename SBufStore to MemBlob and give it its new home
- rename SBuf to Buffer (I don't remember if we had agreed on a
different name, there were quite a few that flew around) and rename
files accordingly
- rename testSBuf files and classes.
- check that the function names in debugs() statements match their
actual name (there's been quite a lot of shuffling)
- define a few more MemPool String sizes and match them with those in
estimateCapacity
- maybe shuffle function implementations around SBuf.cc(i) to match
their definition order in SBuf.h

Thanks,

-- 
    /kinkie