Peter Royal wrote: >On Wednesday 26 June 2002 10:27 am, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > >>I think there is something plain confusing in all this. >> >> > >"one man's component is another man's object" >:) > >There are no "hard and fast" rules, its all a design decision. Making >everything a component would be overkill (the hammer anti-pattern!). One has >to decide the proper level of component abstraction for their own projects. > Just for the sake of argument, I would propose that you are exactly right about the hammer analogy, but just glossing over it misses the point, Peter.
It would seem logical that there are *exact* anti-patterns to watch for that would prescribe the use of COP over OOP, and visa versa. It would also seem logical that these should be the top of everyone's list to know and rattle off. Without these, we are just messing around with fun stuff for the sake of messing around.
