"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cuadnUz5QPKby23bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:EM-dnb1p44ldZ3LbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>>> .oO(NoDude)
>>>>
>>>>> @Michael - I currently use __autoload, which is a neat shortcut,
>>>>> albeit it has the same speed impact as *_once (in my case, even
>>>>> greater, because of directory traversing).
>>>> I also traverse a lot of class directories, but only if the requested
>>>> class could not be found in the class cache, where the locations of all
>>>> classes are stored. In such case the cache has to be refreshed.
>>>>
>>>>> How I (or Steve for that matter) include our files is not (and never
>>>>> was) my point however. I was just saying and still am - Using require
>>>>> over require_once makes you think of what dependencies you'll have in
>>>>> any given request (every single request is unaware of the dependencies
>>>>> in the previous request and has its own dependencies).
>>>> Knowing beforehand which classes will be required to handle a
>>>> particular
>>>> request is pretty much impossible in my framework. The request handlers
>>>> themselves decide which of them will be responsible for answering the
>>>> request and which other objects might be necessary for doing that. It's
>>>> even possible that a handler instantiates some objects and then
>>>> forwards
>>>> the request to a sub handler, which in turn might need the informations
>>>> provided by the parent handler.
>>>>
>>> In a properly designed framework, you can predict not only what classes
>>> will be required, but what methods in those classes.
>>
>> not necessarily. what about a c++ framework for creating an STL. the
>> framework is usually *complete* abstraction where little is known, yes?
>>
>>
>
> Yep, still can. Properly designed, you will know exactly which STL
> classes are required.
>
> The key is in the design - not writing code until it works.

who said anything about writing code until it works? i may have class A, B,
and C. C requires B, and A extends C...further A, and B were designed as
stand-alone, independent objects. there must be a clean way to determine
that when A, B, and C are called as resources in a single script, they
should only be defined once. also, each must specify what resources they'll
consume independently.

because of the design, which there is nothing wrong with it (say B is a base
object of a specific db implementation, C is a db consumer, and A is a
specific implementation of C), this delima is natural. it is by design, is
not faulty, and works. i'm not getting your point?