Hi Michael, I think we definitely lack a common framework to name correctly concepts that we have been using here: OO business model, etc etc Depending on the reader's role, business service or business object can be interpreted in one way or another. I think we should start consider a wider framework than we have used so far to name these concepts. Maybe Enterprise Architecture frameworks could help here. For example, when you talk about OO Business Model and referring to Zachman, are you talking about an Enterprise or a System Model? For me, OO is used for system modelling (according to Zachman framework) while business processes are considered as Enterprise models, so not in the same category at all. I've rarely (never) seen OO used for describing an organisation model or a business process. Best regards. Robin Mulkers
--- In [email protected], Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Robin, > I have looked into the nakedobjects.org and announced principles again. They > do not answer my question. I asked for an example of BUSINESS being organized in OO manner, not how a business might be modeled. > > With all respect to participants of the nakedobjects.org , I take this as another IT attempt to put a cart ahead the horse, i.e. create an IT view on the real business world. Statements like "A business system should be designed using behaviourally complete domain objects" direct modeling off the business world reality because "The domain objects represent the nouns or entities in the business domain (such as Customer, Product and Order). Behavioural completeness means that all of the behaviours or functionality associated with a Customer should be implemented as methods on that object" is simply inadequate to the modern business world. Why? Because the market today is not static or relatively static as it was several years ago. > > As a result, a model which has pretensions to reflect the business must provide top level flexibility, adaptability, extendability, i.e. TO BE DESIGNED FOR THE CHANGES. If a domain object encapsulates "all of the behaviours or functionality associated with" it, this makes it clumsy and requires constant changes to keep up with the business needs. This is exactly what we have today and this is the reason for SOA to appear very these days, not earlier, i.e. it is a reflection of the fact that the business dislikes such model, it slows down business evolution/progress. > > I could elaborate more on what the nature of business "objects" is needed today but it is a subject of different discussion. > > - Michael Poulin > > > > > > Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You will > find good examples of OO business models made for business > people in the Naked Objects area http://www.nakedobjects.org/book/ > Important to mention that the intention to open OO concepts to > business people was not the #1 priority at that time. > Best regards. > Robin Mulkers > --- In [email protected], Michael Poulin > <m3poulin@> wrote: > > > > Just out of curiosity, can anybody point me to an example of live "OO > > business concept"? > > > > I would agree with Jerry - we have the disconnection between the > business and IT now (and trying to fix it using SOA) partially because > IT evangelized OO and has forgotten to tell business that "We must > have OO business concept for object technologies to be useful"... > > > > - Michael > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. >
