26 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
26 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
---+!! %TOPIC%
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1146741989" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
|
||
|
|
It's no surprise that Object and Class consist of mostly a common thing with only a few small differences. In OOP languages this usually manifests itself by the fact that there is a Class Class, so that a Class is itself an object of something. The stuff that describes Class Class is thus exactly what is common to all Classes.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
SDD could probably be simplified if the commonality in Class and Object that occurs in 0.9 is typed and given a name, and both Class and Object are derived types from that. _UrClass_ might be a good name.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 27 Jan 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I have a problem to follow, it seems this is the answer to a discussion, rather than the start? I do not see any communality in SDD 0.9 between <nop>ClassNameConnectorType and <nop>DescribedObjectConnectorType, other than the one already inherited from the - much more general - <nop>ResourceConnectorBaseType.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Can you clarify this discussion?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 09 Feb 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I close the discussion in the ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09 topic.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 1 May 2004
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1085758022" from="SDD.DeadTopicObjectsNotMuchDifferentFromClasses" to="SDD.ClosedTopicObjectsNotMuchDifferentFromClasses"}%
|