Re: I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal to resolveinfo model issues

[Farrukh Najmi - JavaSoft East <Farrukh.Najmi@East.Sun.COM>]

This email is to clarify 2 things. One to assure Scott that I am still an unabashed 
Object-head and have a soft spot for the word object. The second is to reassure 
Len that being a dutiful Object-head I deplore multiple inheritence.

Please note that the suggestion to change Object to Identifiable had nothing to
do with wanting to remove the word Object (ManagedObject and now IntrinsicObject, ExtrinsicObject
are still there). It had to do with the desire to identify and factor out 
common behaviour such as the ability to Version an object or to Identify it. The
idea is that by defining these as separate light weight interfaces we can have
any class implement these interfaces any where in a class hierarchy. This is
not multiple ineritance of implementation. Rather it is behaviour enforcement by
way of interface inheritance. It adds no complexity to implemetations. It simply 
says that a class or interface that implements the Identifiable interface must support 
a GUID attribute (getGUID and setGUID methods). That said, I can easily retract
the suggestion to change Object to Identifiable if it is a barrier to concensus.

IMHO This email discussion is rather ineffective. Misunderstandings can occur with long
pregnant pauses between clarifications. 

Len and I accomplished more alignment of our thoughts in 1 hour virtually working on the same screen than we
had in all previous meetings combined. We are quite close. I believe we are due 
for a 2-3 day f2f. Scott is this possible in the next 2 weeks? I would be happy to host
in in Burlington MA. How do folks feel about it.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

"Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com> wrote:
>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 12:02:20 -0600
>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.