wiki-archive/twiki/temp-gjr/BDI/SDD/ClosedTopicObjectsNotMuchDifferentFromClasses.txt,v

head	1.9;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.9
date	2009.11.25.03.14.31;	author GarryJolleyRogers;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.8;

1.8
date	2009.11.20.02.45.23;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.7;

1.7
date	2007.03.06.17.30.00;	author TWikiGuest;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2006.05.04.11.26.29;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2004.06.21.11.30.02;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2004.05.28.14.52.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2004.05.01.23.45.27;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2004.02.09.13.03.55;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2004.01.27.23.01.04;	author BobMorris;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.9
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118871" format="1.1" version="1.9"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
---+!! %TOPIC%

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. 

BDI.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 BDI.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"}%
@


1.8
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685123" format="1.1" reprev="1.8" version="1.8"}%
d7 1
a7 1
BDI.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.
d13 1
a13 1
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 BDI.SDD 0.9 between <nop>ClassNameConnectorType and <nop>DescribedObjectConnectorType, other than the one already inherited from the - much more general - <nop>ResourceConnectorBaseType.
@


1.7
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@d1 2
a4 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1146741989" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
d7 1
a7 1
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.
d13 1
a13 1
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.
d17 1
a17 1
-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 09 Feb 2004	
@


1.6
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 22
a22 21
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1087817402" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
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 SchemaDiscussionSDD09 topic.

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 1 May 2004
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
a2 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085755920" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussion"}%
d19 1
a19 1
I close the discussion in the SchemaDiscussion topic.
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1083455127" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
d15 1
a15 1
-- Gregor Hagedorn  09 Feb 2004	
d19 1
a19 1
I close the discussion now in the SchemaDiscussion topic...
d21 2
a22 1
-- Gregor Hagedorn  1 May 2004	
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1076331835" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d15 7
a21 2
-- Gregor Hagedorn  09 Feb 2004	

@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1075244464" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d8 9
@