[cap-talk] "Composite", was "Same" key
david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Feb 14 19:15:51 CST 2007
> Charles Landau wrote:
>>At 6:15 PM +0000 2/14/07, David Hopwood wrote:
>>>We seem to be agreed
>>>on what the concepts are, so it's just a matter of deciding between:
>>>1. Object Composite
>>>2. Object Abstraction
>>>3. Atomic object Object
>>No, I think the choices are:
>> 1 >1 >=1
>>1 (MarkM) Object Composite ?
> The "?" is "Composite".
>>2 (Hopwood) Object or Abstraction Abstraction Abstraction
> In row 1, an object can be viewed as a composite.
> In row 2, an object can be viewed as an abstraction.
> In row 3, an atomic object can be viewed as an object.
> I.e. in general, the concept in column "1" can be viewed as an
> instance of the concept in column ">=1". So there is no need to write
> "Object or Abstraction" here.
For clarification, I meant that "Object" is sufficient.
>>3 (Landau) Atomic object Composite object Object
An abstraction with two objects such that one is an interface subset
of the other, is an instance of the ">1" column. I thought that part of
your argument was that you didn't want to call that "composite", since
it is not constructed by composition, narrowly defined.
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>
More information about the cap-talk