[cap-talk] "Composite", was "Same" key

[Rob Meijer]

On Fri, February 16, 2007 06:26, Charles Landau wrote:
> At 4:45 AM +0000 2/16/07, David Hopwood wrote:
>>At risk of repeating myself, analysing an object as a
>> composite/abstraction
>>is useful because, for a large proportion of uses, the client neither
>> knows
>>nor cares whether the object depends on additional hidden objects. To
>> require
>>that there not be hidden objects would be an overspecification.
>
> That is exactly why there should be a term for "a set of one or more
> related atomic objects".

Maybe multiple terms would even be needed.
The most relevant being: some sort of a fanout composit, and some sort of
fan-in composit.
That is, one term describing a single object that can have multiple hidden
objects assosiated
with it, and more importantly, a single (or fanout composit) object that
can have multiple 'stateless' objects assosiated with it.


Rob