That being the case, you would have to have a class for every combinationObviously, there are no hard and fast rules, so you should look at each situation differently. But, generally I would be of the opinion that a Corgi doesn't really have an optional tail; it simply doesn't have a tail at all. It would be one thing if some Corgis had tails, while others did not, but no Corgis have tails therefore a tail is not optional for any Dogs since Corgi is a Dog.
optional attribute, or combination of optional attribute. I do like this
idea, do you think it would be wise to come up with a healthy balance or
blend of empty strings, and inheritance based on what makes sense for each
situation? On this same note, would you then want to have extended classes
to handle multiplicity. Meaning if an object can have 0..* other objects,
would you then need to have an extended class for the instances where there
are more that 0 objects. I think I just started rambling....I am more than
willing to clarify if need be?
In regard to your other question about multiplicity I would suggest you check out the following link, which describes the Java Collection Framework. While the framework is certainly Java specific, the overview page that I am referencing describes details of why a collection framework is useful in the first place and may provide you will sufficient background to answer your own question.
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/guide/collections/ overview.html
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
