[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal to resolve infomodel issues
I still do NOT fully understand the objection over the object class or ManagedObject. I follow the philosophy that everything and anything is an object. I heard "behaviour" being a factor in this on the last teleconference, plus a product-based issue. 1) An object CAN have behaviour, but it does not mandate that is HAS behaviour. A rock is an object and has no behaviour. To insist that objects have behaviour forces the rock to have an operation such as throwMe() which is nonsense. 2) I do not believe that it really conflicts with any programming model if it is properly namespaced. ebxml.registry.object whatever. I also argued that objects can contain other objects, which to me is a critical concept. I would like a vote to see if there a consensus to any change to this. I vote no change! If I am missing a major point, please help clarify this position. I do not want too many cycles put on this topic. Scott >> BTW What do folks think of renaming Object to Identifiable? The idea is to factor out behaviour such as Identifiable Versionable etc. as separate classes so that behaviour can be added at any level. The Identifiable class would still have the GUID attribute as its only attribute. This may partially mitigate Scott H's concern about Object.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC