• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:56:31 -0500

See Groves.  Nodes is nodes.  

The weeping starts with the names.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...]

What would be of great benefit is if I could 
1) have the objects internal data model made more obvious
2) have those constraints that can be written declaratively done so

This is all just objects, done differently. I won't say 'refactored' because
people will spit on me. But their are data models there, buried in all the
class hierarchies ever written; don't lie to me and tell me they're not. 

And yes, there is one of them, albeit representable in a thousand different
ways, one of the worst ones being through an OO langauge (as they currently
are designed).

• Prev by Date: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Next by Date: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Previous by thread: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Next by thread: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread