> Ahem, are you exploring new boundaries of purist OOP, and at the
same
> time considering globals???
> Let alone, that from a practical point of view, it would obstruct
> multiple simultaneous instances.
and you are absolutely 101 % correct.
> I think the key issue is:
> No matter how convoluted you make the structure, to avoid having a
> "getter" method in the qtObject, you will either wrap the
slider-code
> inside the main qtObject, or accept passing data from one object and
> to another at some point.
yes. how indeed do you have these objects function reasonably and
efficiently unless they can communicate?
> I just can't see a solution with all the slider code inside the main
> object, as being superior to a solution with a main-object and a
> slider-object... where is compartmentalization?
even if you put all of the main slider functionality in the
QTMovieObject, the slider still needs to tell the object that
something has happened. correct? & that is data passing.
> What is the big principal advantage of the qtObject sending the data
> to the slider object rather than the slider object "getting" it from
> the qtObject? I'm not arguing, that this could be an appropriate
> system, maybe I would do it that way anyway, I just can't see it as
> being more ideally abstracted than a system where the main object
was
> oblivious to its clients, who polled the information as they
desired.
in act this is what i have done in the past & it "worked" perfectly
well. but it "broke the rules," that is why I am trying to come up
with a scenairo that would be better. I still keep coming up against
the same old problems tho.
> Yes, you could minimize the amount of messages if the qtObject
> stopped pushing info into the slider when there were no news, but
> that's another issue, and besides it requires the main object to
> "know", that the "client" slider doesn't need updates when the main
> object is in a special state, thus compromising the implementation
> hiding of the client.
well the callback idea would possibly resolve that one, yes?
> Come on, light my bulb!
hey, I never said I was an OOP expert. I've been waiting for someone
like Irv to butt in & set us all straight. <grin> or at lease enough
folks here putting their heads together & coming up with a consensus.
gotta scram. bike race in 1 hour. more thought about all this later.
Al Hospers
CamberSoft, Inc.
al<at>cambersoft<dot>com
http://www.cambersoft.com
Shockwave and Director development, Lingo programming, CGI scripting.
A famous linguist once said:
"There is no language wherein a double
positive can form a negative."
YEAH, RIGHT
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
