On 8/29/05, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the question is only asked internally then there's no problem. The > issue I was driving at is when you need to communicate with other > people. If my definition of transfer object is different from your > definition of transfer object, then at best we have to stop to get our > definitions in line, and at worst we will think we're talking about > the same thing when in reality we aren't.
My definition of "transfer object" is "Data Transfer Object," on page 401 of Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Architecture. It's a popular book often referenced on this list. I know a "business object" when I see one, but don't know of any good defintions. I think the concept of "business object" is too abstract to be classified as a pattern, anyway. A "bean" used to be a JavaBean, as defined by Sun. It wasn't a pattern. It was a set of conventions. Then they created Enterprise JavaBeans, which I understand don't have much in common with JavaBeans. I don't what "bean" means outside of Java. As I've said before, when you mention a pattern name in front of a large group (like this list) you should always tie it to a formal definiton that's accessible to everyone in the group. (Exception: I think we can assume that GoF book is the authoritative source for all of the patterns it describes.) Patrick -- Patrick McElhaney 704.560.9117 http://pmcelhaney.weblogs.us ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
