230 lines
5.8 KiB
Plaintext
230 lines
5.8 KiB
Plaintext
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
|
|
@
|