On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:41:29PM -0300, Thiago L. wrote:
On 23/09/14 03:18 PM, William Ahern wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 02:23:12PM -0300, Thiago L. wrote:
I'm writing an IRC library as the existing ones aren't really good
enough (or pure Lua enough) for my purposes. I'm trying to decide
on how
to handle the messages, but I need some input.
First method: (I prefer this way as I think it gives the coder more
freedom, you can register a single handler and handle any number of
events you want, and you can also use this to implement the 2nd
method.
I could also add priorities to this.)
irc.addHandler(coroutine.create(function(...)
while true do
-- something here
coroutine.yield()
end
end))
<snip>
Second method: (this is how LuaIRC does it... not very friendly,
especially when you're doing a modular bot...)
irc.addHandler("eventName", function(...)
end)
So, what do you say? Should I go for the 1st or the 2nd method, or
should I go for something else entirely?
IMO both of these options are too high-level and make too many
assumptions
about the caller. I dislike APIs which make too many assumptions. I'd
rather
they make fewer assumptions, but make it trivial for me to extend
things.
What do you mean too many assumptions about the caller?
For one thing, that the library users wants to handle events through a
callback (push rather than pull). Depending on how the object acquires
input, that the event dispatcher will loop indepenently rather than
being
controlled in a step-by-step fashion by the library user.
Google "push pull parsing". It's generally considered that pull
parsers are
much easier to integrate into applications. For example,
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19316-01/819-3669/bnbdy/index.html
