[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models

• From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:18:18 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> > OO is just language support for a common pattern, that behaviour is bound
> > to bits of data, and you can substitute things for other things if they
> > both support the interface required for that role.
> 
> That's the problem.  I don't buy this as a definition of OO.  There are
> other models that are not OO that expound the same tenets.  OO is just one
> model that uses the above ideas, but in a somewhat limited way.

I'd probably call them OO in another guise or scenario, like the component
model is a kind of coarse-grain OO :-)

> I think the argument has pretty much come down to the basis, and as
> usual, the disagreement is merely one of definition.

Quite likely!

> Thanks for the ride.

Pleasure. Was it fund for the passengers, everyone?

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: APIs, messaging
• Next by Date: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Previous by thread: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Next by thread: RE: APIs, messaging
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread