Hi,
The very good thing about the associations owned by packages is that:
It's very easy for user to access association information using rose script.
If access association information from classes, you will get duplicate
information, as both classes owns the association.
Actually, rose allow you to access association information from both
Package->Association and Class->Association.
You choose whichever approach to make it.
Guess it's called flexibility.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tapio Taipale
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:07 AM
To: Kennedy, Patrick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: (ROSE) Where to put the associations?
Hi,
This was an excellent reply that helped me a lot.
I'm still curious why the associations have to be owned by packages. It
seems to be a feature of Rose and not a very nice one.
Wouldn't it be much easier (for users, at least) that classes owns their
associations? In case of bi-directional association both classes would own a
copy of the association (isn't that the case also in implementation in any
OO language). For read-only units one-way associations would be no problem
but I guess bi-directional associations might have some problems if other
unit is read-only.
-Tapio
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
