Re: (ROSE) RE: My BIG Question(long). Les Munday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Answer: �All class operations should be private to the class > that implements those operations, no class should be able to > directly access the operations of another class.�
I have corresponded privately with Les about objects and how they model events. He is proposing a radical change to our sense of how an object works, and the only way to assess it would be to apply it for a few months. Even that may not be conclusive, though, because existing tools are not fully adapted to the revised object. As an old automation and communications guy from the bronze age, I am sympathetic to much of what Les says, but it runs contrary to what I think most people visualize as an object. In the conventional view, an event is modeled as a message, which is modeled as an operation on some receiving object. Good coupling is mainly achieved by a careful selection of what operations are public and what private. If a message in a sequence diagram can be understood by a pure domain expert, it is generally realized as a public operation (or, at least, it is not private). Although we avoid functional decomposition, there is no harm in perceiving that objects may be created to be shallowly or deeply nested, and that shallowly-nested objects are usually more "architectural" (more clearly related to the use case diagram, for instance). Although people make countless mistakes in applying this model, the facts remain that it is very powerful and that a large number of people have been able to gain an understanding of the model that is largely shared. To the degree that the understanding is shared, we have culture and industry. Les needs to demonstrate powerfully the benefits of his approach, which may be superior to common practice. How he does this is a mystery to me, but until he does it, the proposition falls to Tarkington's principle: "It's better that it be standard than that it be good." Tarkington's principle is irritating, and it is as much sociological and psychological as technical, but I keep finding useful applications. At the level of practical suggestions, I think Les should develop a very simple manual of how to apply his ideas to one or two popular domains. He may also consider suggesting extensions to the UML, or drawing up an altogether new language. (A basic tenet of management: If I don't know how to do it, it must be easy. -Dilbert) Now, where did I put my bronze sword? -Eric ************************************************************************ * 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 * *************************************************************************
