W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2013

RE: Questions/Comments on Media Stream Recording

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:04:00 +0000
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
CC: "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "mandyam@quicinc.com" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D2810411A4@GENSJZMBX02.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
  It's just a quibble about style.  When I used to program in C++, I was taught never to write code like:

   // or if you have a reference to the recorder you
   // can access it directly
   recStream = recorder.stream;

The idea was that accessing instance variables directly broke encapsulation, and that it was better to always use an accessor function:
    recStream = recorder.getStream()

So my question is whether we should add an accessor function like getStream() so that programmers do not have to access the .stream instance variable directly.  It's just a quibble (and I get the sense that such style questions aren't very important in the  JavaScript world.)

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Bergkvist [mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:58 AM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; mandyam@quicinc.com; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions/Comments on Media Stream Recording

On 2013-05-23 15:10, Jim Barnett wrote:
> Adam,
> Yes, this is true.  However in some circles/languages it is considered 
> very bad style to access instance variables directly (particularly for 
> code outside the class).  Do we share this view?

I'm not sure I'm following. Do you mean it's bad style to access the stream from the recorder? Could you elaborate?

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 13:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:17 UTC