RFC for Refactoring Firmware from Inheritance to Composition Pattern #1
+139
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
caveman99
previously approved these changes
Nov 14, 2023
code8buster
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Refactoring Meshtastic Firmware from Inheritance to Composition
Proposal Text
Summary
The Meshtastic firmware currently heavily utilizes an inheritance pattern of OOP. This RFC proposes to migrate the firmware from this inheritance pattern to a composition pattern. Perceived benefits of this approach can be found in the Motivation section.
Examples of inheritance being used within the Meshtastic firmware are listed below:
One point to note is that C++ doesn't have an explicit
interfacekeyword, meaning contracts are declared as shown below:In this context, inheritance is where a superclass contains methods from a subclass, which is not the case in the two lines directly above. An example of this can be found here.