Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ihlpe!daryl
From: daryl@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Daryl Monge)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Question Re: Configuration Management
Message-ID: <2640@ihlpe.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 88 02:58:06 GMT
References: <497@aimt.UUCP>
Organization: Engineering Design Process Department, AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 26
Keywords: configuration management, software design

In article <497@aimt.UUCP>, breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) writes:
> Now I've never heard this recommendation before.  Nor have I ever seen
> (non-trivial) software that only had one 'call interface' per source file.

I haven't either.

> So how about it?  What horrible CM problems does having more than one
> 'call interface' per source file cause?

None, unless of course the modules are unrelated.  For example, wouldn't
you want the insert, delete, and search functions for a hash table
implementation in a single file "hash.c" for readability and maintenance?
Did you ask what those problems were, or would that be dangerous to your
career?

We strive for a set of product goals that consist of a set of required
standards and recommended guidelines.  Each person or project should
establish these to their own satisfaction.  But avoid nitpicking.

In this particular case, we have requirements of maximum lines per module,
but only a goal of functions per file.  The above managers requirement
does seem restrictive to me.

Daryl Monge				UUCP:	...!ihnp4!ihcae!daryl
AT&T					CIS:	72717,65
Bell Labs, Naperville, Ill		AT&T	312-979-3603