in reply to High-level methods to low-level: Do I put them together?
Is the design with all levels in the same class fundamentally wrong?
That depends. Will doing it this way substantially increase the effort required to support different types of logs? Are you likely to need to support more log types in the future? Does your current solution contain lots of redundant code that just screams for abstraction and encapsulation? The answers to these questions are the answers to your question.
I do ~80% of my coding in languages that don't support OOP (Transact SQL and C) and the remaining 20% in perl where OOP is optional (albeit frequently useful)-- so I find the idea of there being 'right' and 'wrong' levels of OOP clutter to be ludicrous. It's a judgement call. There's more than one way to do it. Pick the one that works best for you.
I slept through the only class in software design I ever took, so feel free to ignore me.
Shoeboy
perl -e "do {kill $java, $ada, $cobol, $pascal, $csh;} until die 'Just another perl hacker';"
That depends. Will doing it this way substantially increase the effort required to support different types of logs? Are you likely to need to support more log types in the future? Does your current solution contain lots of redundant code that just screams for abstraction and encapsulation? The answers to these questions are the answers to your question.
I do ~80% of my coding in languages that don't support OOP (Transact SQL and C) and the remaining 20% in perl where OOP is optional (albeit frequently useful)-- so I find the idea of there being 'right' and 'wrong' levels of OOP clutter to be ludicrous. It's a judgement call. There's more than one way to do it. Pick the one that works best for you.
I slept through the only class in software design I ever took, so feel free to ignore me.
Shoeboy
perl -e "do {kill $java, $ada, $cobol, $pascal, $csh;} until die 'Just another perl hacker';"
|
|---|
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom