Stephen McConnell wrote:
Have been thinking about the same thing. Bottom line there is no dramtic or fundimental reason to have this as inheritance based. In fact I've been reworking TypeManager locally to turn it into a component. This follows the thinking in my post about bootstrap versus pluggable components that provide core services. If the pluggable things are always full components, then there is no reason why one should not allow an alternative TypeManager (or XxxxManager) component.Is this inheritance for re-use or inheritance that really 'means something', i.e., IS-A? I've heard a number of Java folks say something to the effect that one should "never use inheritance unless you will 1) instantiate the inherited object, and 2) in some cases use the inheriting object in place of the inherited object". Inheritance for re-use creates (IMHO) tight webs of dependency and makes code hard to understand.
For the moment I suggest maintaining the inheritance approach while I turn things into conponents and then look at this again in a few days.
But thinking a little more .. an appliance manager could aggregate a profile manager could aggregate a type manager could aggregate a service manager.
Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
