[Kstars-devel] SkyPoint/SkyObject refactoring

[Akarsh Simha]

> > I don't see why (from KStars' point of view) a SkyObject is not a
> > SkyPoint (with some dimensions and extra attributes). I wonder if it
> > is worth all the effort to tackle this. SkyObject is comfortably
> > extending SkyPoint, right?
> >
> SkyObject is not SkyPoint because it's impossible to replace S.O. with S.P. 
> unless all you need is coordinates. 

Hmm...

> > Moreover, the code will become much more complicated if a SkyObject
> > has a SkyPoint rather than inheriting from it. We will need to call
> > SkyObject::point()->ra() for instance, or reimplement a host of
> > functions. I don't think the change is worth the effort.
> >
> I could tell whether change will be for worse or better. This could be 
> determined only experimentally. So I'll try write patchset which implement 
> such change. It should be useful anyway since it will provide knowledge on how 
> should things be done. 

Okay.

> My main complaint about kstars design is that it's tight coupled and not 
> orthgonal. When I want to look at one thing I have to look at many.
> I don't know how this could be improved so I'm trying to do something and look 
> for result. 

That's true. I had trouble initially going through KStars' codebase,
but after some time, I now know where to look for things. Maybe we
should have an inheritance diagram somewhere, to help quickly find
bits of code that matter.

Regards
Akarsh