Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:26:20 GMT
Message-ID: <wIKfg.16269$A26.376462@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Christian Brunschen wrote:
> In article <lsBfg.3076$%86.209_at_trndny04>,
> David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net> wrote:
>

>>"Christian Brunschen" <cb_at_festis.df.lth.se> wrote in message
>>news:e5mir9$gug$1_at_news.lth.se...
>>
>>>For a trivial example, consider an application that needs to somehow
>>>authenticate users [ ... ]
>>
>>What makes the example trivial?  Do you mean trivial in the sense that
>>mathematicians use the word, in the sense that engineers use the word,  or
>>in the sense that common parlance uses the word?

>
> In a very loose common parlance sense of the example being easy to come up
> with, not being contrived and thus something that people do occasionally
> encounter.

You left out the part where it was not very illuminating either. Assuming one decides that forgoing the authentication system built into every dbms is a good idea in the first place, authentication lends itself to a simple predicate (using the computer programming definition) or similarly simple subroutine regardless.

Your argument is as valid as stating one should create a square root function to isolate the program from numerical methods or a distance function to isolate the program from your choice of square root function.

While I consider the separation of concerns a sound design principle, your argument leaves me uncertain as to what concerns you intend to separate. Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 18:26:20 CDT