From: Adam Flinton 

Paul Ranson wrote:

> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:4022dfc9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Yup but it allows me to move my code from platform to platform & from
>>runtime to runtime. I tend to dev on linux & winXP/2k &
then deploy onto
>>something bigger.
>
>
> This is an advantage, but not one that I feel is worth working very hard
> for.

I don't have to work very hard for it. .sh instead of .bat (or vice versa)
ain't that hard.

> IMO choose your platform and make it great, and if you treat
> functionality on a larger scale as commodity objects then it doesn't matter
> what nature of box or OS a blob of usefulness runs on.
>

Nah coz big customers like choice.

>
>>Nah...Biggger chunkier objects. It's why I always tend to create objects
>>with a init() & a "handledata()" (whatever that data
is wether event or
>>string or whatever. init the object & cache it (if you're going to be
>>using it a lot). Good example being all the various xml handling stuff
>>where the only thing that'll change is the incoming xml.
>
>
> To me it is reasonably obvious that you would consider reusing something
> that has a significant setup/takedown time. I'm not convinced that need
> apply to an XML parser though. A database connection would perhaps be a
> better example?
>

Both. Big complex objects should be created once & reused. DB conns are
pooled almost by default nowadays.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5