Ok! I will give you that one, one or two depths but no more! you get me
every time you devilish little thing.... I get all puffed up and I say "No
Rickard!" (tail wagging) "No more 10 depth hierarchies....Rickard!" but
then you get me and when I come back the stuff looks like a pyramid of
classes, and then I look closer I realize we do in 43 classes what we use to
do in 2... woo woo!!! real design? where is my gun?
Actually I am pulling your leg, you don't do it *that* bad, ok you did in
the EJX metadata stuff but that is ok (remember the
getContext().getContext().getContext().getContext (/outofbreath)? stuff???)
but really that is ok and I AGREE with you that the extensions in the
container are good and useful.
Let's not get in religious arguments over "I like my hierarchies with 2 or 3
depths, but no more".
I really believe that factorization is a "late stage" excercise. Good
design (like the one you did) doesn't go overboard with abstract classes and
"implements pedantable, unreliable, unreadable" classes.
In fact and I will go one step further in that direction, I believe it is
the "bane" of new contributors that want to make an impression on us... when
the fact is, if it works and it fits the current simple architecture we are
happy. More often than not, a newbie will want' to make sure that the
hierarchies are squeaky clean etc... overkill, we like you just the same.
About the only interface a newbie should implement is
implements "reliable, readable, simple" :))))
regards
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rickard �berg
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:40 AM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] ejb-ref question
>
>
> marc fleury wrote:
> > you do that in other parts of the code (factor out metadata
> information) and
> > I don't think it is a good idea. Byproduct of "design talk"
> but not real.
> > So if the variable is in the metadata and you don't need it for
> > MessageBeans? well don't use it!!! but don't put a hierarchy of 10 depth
> > just to cover simple metadata squeakiness not worth it, really not.
> >
> > Flat metadata is good (simple), metadata with gazillion
> hierarchy classes is
> > silly... we have been there, done that (twice!) and we know
> it's useless.
> >
> > Even though I am no expert on non-object languages, I can relate to the
> > critics of java and OO in general that "extensive" hierarchies
> is OO-goop...
> > A little is good, most notably interfaces are good, but the 10 depth
> > metadata structures only impress little girls.
>
> Absolutely, and why separate the containers into three separate ones? I
> mean, cause like, "DaContainer" would work, right. And it would be,
> like, awesome, coz it could do just about anything. You know. And then
> and then, like when MessageBeans are implemented, right, it also goes
> into DaContainer... like "Resistance is futile" and just assimilate its
> bad butt. And then everything is like one class! Whoa! And its like
> simple, because I only have to import One Class! YEAH!
>
> Right.
>
> Not.
>
> Don't agree with you, but that's just my silly little OO-head talking.
> And I'm not talking "extensive" hear, just two levels, just like the
> containers.
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.telkel.com
> http://www.jboss.org
> http://www.dreambean.com
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
