Brad Lafountain wrote:
*SNIP*
> But do you see my point that having ONLY aggregate means that in 90% of the
> case where people will use it its probally a bad idea. They are only using it
> becuase of the lack of MI. How does aggregation solve overwriting methods.
>
> class a
> {
> function blah()
> {
> echo "in a";
> }
> }
>
> class b
> {
> function blah()
> {
> echo "in b";
> }
> }
>
> class c
> {
> function blah()
> {
> echo "in c";
> }
> }
>
> class d extends a,b,c
> {
> function blah()
> {
> echo a::blah() . b::blah() . c::blah();
> }
> }
With MI, documentation can be generated easily using tools.
*EASIER* to maintain code.
>
> how do you do that with aggregation? MI really is way different than
> aggregation.
>
> I see aggregation used for adding methods to an existing class.
> class a
> {
> function do_a()
> {
> }
> }
> class b
> {
> function do_b()
> {
> }
> }
>
> $c = new stdclass;
> aggregate($c, "a");
> aggregate($c, "b");
> $c->do_a();
> $c->do_b();
>
With aggregate, auto generating documentation hard.
*HARDER* (very hard, if one use it w/o good reason) to maintain code
To me, aggregate is "GOTO" like feature.
It's useful for sure, Howver
_Never_ use unless there is very good reason.
Therefore, it worth to have both MI and aggregate. IMHO
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
>
> but i still don't like this... there are cleaner ways around that by using
> members and/or MI.
>
> - Brad
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
