I have no idea what you are asking.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- "Come to the edge, he said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came. He pushed them and they flew." Guillaume Apollinaire quotes --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
