> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 February 2002 10:39
> To: Gopi Akula
> Cc: [unknown]
> Subject: Re: (ROSE) Control objects in robust analysis
>
>
>
> (responding to Gopi)
>
> > I am planning to use the Robbust Analysis approach
> > (boundary,control,entity),before I go to detail design.
> > I have a problem Naming/representing the control
> > objects in rose.
>
> > 1)As far as i know,I think Control/controllers are the classes
> > which hold the business rule/logic. They act as a mediator
> > between boundary and the entity objects and also between
> > 2 non communicating entity objects. Is my understanding
> > correct.
>
> > I am having hard time in determining how do you name a
> > control object.Is it by the task it is supposed to perform or
> > a generic business name. If you name them by process,
> > then I need to integrate them later when I go to the
> > detailed design as a controller can perfrom multiple tasks.
>
> > Do we bridge this classes later at design time.
>
> Unfortunately, in this area, if you get six different responses
> they are all likely to be different (unless people quote from books
> rather than from their own experience).
>
Hee hee. Some things never change.
> Personally, I feel that the "Boundary, Control, Entity" distinction
> better suits the 'real world' Business Object Model than the
> problem model within the computer system. The reason for this
> is that in the real world, many of the objects modelled are just
> pieces of paper, and paper is notoriously short in behaviour.
> As a result, the smart aspects exhibited by these objects are
> delegated to human 'controllers' who push the papers round
> in the right way. Within the computer system, the smart behaviour
> is better attached to the objects where it rightly belongs. This
> is because the human 'controllers' in the real world can adapt to
> new ways of working far faster than the programmed controller
> objects within the computer. The way I work would eliminate
> almost all 'Controller' objects and instead have 'Smart Entity'
> objects. About the only use I have for 'Controller' objects is
> to stitch together the relevant 'Smart Entity' objects that are
> needed to realise specific Use Case scripts.
>
This has always been the intention with the Controller Objects. Even a
better name would probably have been a Co-ordinator Object, or Policy
Object. The controller concept is quite easy to pervert, unfortunately: it
can easily become the object that controls a lot of dumb entity objects that
provide nothing but accessor operations.
It is definitely worthwhile to start with your Business Objects (the smart
entities) and try to get them to do as much of the processing as possible.
Only when you come across tasks that appear awkward in any of the BOs should
yu move that functionality up to a Policy Object or a Controller Object.
If you look a little deeper at the Robustness Analysis approach, the
intention is to initially attach responsibilities to the Controller Objects,
then, as the analysis progresses, move as much of those as possible to the
Entities. This is a neat approach to bridge the gap between the functional
world of use cases and the responsibility world of objects. It also reduces
the size of the intuitive leaps you need to make to bridge that gap: The
samller the leaps, the less chance of being stuck in analysis paralysis.
Trouble is that it is very easy to do the first stage, then stop, because
the model that you quickly end up with does fit in quite nicely with the
procedural mindset. Avoiding analysis paralysis with analysis anorexia is
not necessarily a good thing.
Regards,
H�seyin Angay
Karabash Ltd.
www.karabash.co.uk
> I'm sure other people will have other opinions, but I hope this
> is of some help.
>
> Paul Oldfield
>
> any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of
> Mentors of Cally
>
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * 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
> **************************************************************
> ***********
>
This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Egg.
The Egg group of companies comprises Prudential Banking plc
(registered no. 2999842), Egg Financial Products Ltd (registered
no. 3319027) and Egg Investments Ltd (registered no. 3403963) which
carries out investment business on behalf of Egg and is regulated
by the Financial Services Authority. All members of the Egg group
are registered in England and Wales. Registered offices: 142
Holborn Bars, London EC1N 2NH
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have
received it in error, please notify the sender by replying with
'received in error' as the subject and then delete it from your
mailbox.
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* 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
*************************************************************************
