Dear all, Q: Can an object (objectA) has a reference to other object (objectB) just for the sake of representing the relationship while none of the behaviour of objectA requires objectB?
e.g. In a CMS system that manages many sites: a Site has many Page. Page has a reference to the Site to specify which site it belongs to. However, none of the behaviour/methods of Page requires Site. Is representing the many-to-one relationship (many Page has one Site) a valid enough reason to have Page carry a reference to the Site object? Or having this reference to Site is actually unnecessary? If so, how else to specify that relationship? Here's what I think... agree or disagree? a.) Setting just the ID can represent the relationship without reference. But in pure OO fashion, storing siteID in Page seems weird, afterall siteID is a PK of the Site table. b.) If the only reason to eliminate the reference to Site is the overhead of creating the Site object, then a SiteProxy object sounds like a good fit. So, just store a reference to SiteProxy in Page to represent the relationship. Thank you all! Henry Ho --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
