On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:54:26 -0800, Steven Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand why this isn't an "is-a" relationship.
You didn't give enough context before! > The basic > component is called a PageElement, and all of the classes that extend are > PageElements. For example, an "image is a page element" and a "text block > is a page element" Yes, in the context of your content management system, this is reasonable. You have a self-contained hierarchy of related classes. What is *not* reasonable is to have some very generic base class containing 'utility' methods and then have CFCs all over your application extending it, even when they are not related to each other. Basically, if two classes extend the same base class, not only are they tightly coupled to the base class, they also become related to each other as, effectively, siblings. If you find yourself with sublings that really don't have a relationship, then your hierarchy is probably wrong... -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
