> The reason for choosing an OO programming language is that it *supports*
the
> various OO constructs - inheritance, classes, polymorphism and all the
> behavour that is implied (eg inheritance without resulting isA behaviour
> isn't true inheritance.)
Oh is THAT what you're on about. In that case I agree with you.
> You would be mad to try and programme in a fully OO way using an 8 bit
> assembler language, because you would have to hand code all of the support
> for OO that an OO language has built into it. This would lead to a
> maintenance nightmare. What happens if someone else modifies your code and
> fails to follow your hand-crafted implementation of some OO feature ? It's
a
> real pain in the arse.
Quite so. Thus I suggest defining it in the interface. The compiler won't
let 'em forget. If they use my suggested common ancestor no special action
is required. Nice and lazy.
> Enterprise Java Beans are implemented using Java. However the EJB spec
does
> not allow for inheritance between EJBs (the major issue being with entity
> beans.) It doesn't support it. Can you hand craft support for isA
> inheritance ? Sure, but that's rather missing the point, as I explained
> above.
This is the point where our opinions diverge. The thing is, I didn't
replicate the inheritance mechanism. What I did was jigger a way to get hold
of the class in question, so that we can use the built-in inheritance
goodies as Gosling intended.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
