On 14 August 2012 12:15, Mark Wood-Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:
> In > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects > > It says: > > Naked Objects is commonly contrasted with the model-view-controller > pattern. > However, the published version of Pawson's thesis (see References) contains > a foreword by Trygve Reenskaug, who first formulated the > model-view-controller pattern, suggesting that naked objects is closer to > the original intent of model-view-controller than many of the subsequent > interpretations and implementations. > > > I'd like to understand why folks question whether Naked Objects paradigm > follows MVC and where they believe it does not follow MVC, anyone know of > any such references? > > That text in wikipedia was written by Richard Pawson, who was attempting to point out to various nay-sayers of the naked objects pattern that NO is very much in accord with MVC. I can't give you any specific references though - that text was in the very first version of that page (Aug 2007). An early criticiser of NO was Larry Constantine, who wrote an article "The Emperor has No Clothes" [1]. He is a usability / UI specialist, so obviously the idea of an auto-generated UI was anathema. There hasn't been much other coherent argument against NO though, that I can recall. But in years gone by we must have handled things very badly, because these days if I see anything about NO at all it tends to be negative. A couple of recent tweets in response to the RO article we put up on infoq [2]: "the naked argument was beaten to death on the DDD list a few years back. annoying that it's back again" and "Naked Objects eh? One of the silliest ideas i've read in a while. Who needs UX?" and "... a big fat helping of Naked Objects insanity". This is the usual level of debate these days (which is to say... it's just not worth having the debate). With respect to the DDD list, it ultimately got too depressing to be on there; any approach not some derivative of CQRS or used a framework was apparently wrong. ORMs and dependency injection into entities and even ACID (you know, the highly controversial use of begin tran ... commit) are just not how things are done over there. A common stance is to trivialise NO as only being appropriate for CRUD systems. Here's a fairly typical thread [3]. There was another quite spectacular thread more recently on the same forum... search for "InfoQ article on Restful Objects" and brace yourself to be offended. And it would seem that even our major existence proof of the validity of the naked objects pattern (namely, the Irish government system) does not seem to cut the mustard. I remember highlighting this on the DDD list and saying that the CIO for the government was on record as saying "'in 30 years of managing IT projects, I have never been more satisfied". He also commented here [4] and was quoted more completely here [5]. The DDD list trashed this quote, as well, though [6]. To counterbalance all this doom-and-gloom, Ed Yourdon yesterday tweeted: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are (Anais Nin)". This cheered me up enormously. HTH Dan [1] http://foruse.com/articles/nakedobjects.pdf [2] http://www.infoq.com/articles/Intro_Restful_Objects [3] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/domaindrivendesign/message/9525 [4] http://www.infoq.com/articles/RAD-Naked-Objects#view_37542 [5] http://nakedobjects.net/news/news_intro.shtml [6] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/domaindrivendesign/message/9563 > > > Mark > >
