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

Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-06-21 12:48:40 -0700, "erk" <eric.kaun_at_gmail.com> said:
>
> > I just think (after 8 years of O-O, beginning
> > with being a true enthusiast) that coupling data and behavior hobbles
> > both
>
> OO does not force you to couple OO and data, it *allows* it. I agree
> that there are costs and benefits to this coupling, and so we can
> decide to do it, or not, on a case by case basis.

I think the problem is that one does not know *ahead* of time if they will stay coupled in the domain situation or drift apart. I see a lot of drift in my experience, so there is little or no benefit to up-front coupling.

Isolating them is actually black-boxing the behavior behind an interface. If I have:

  doX(...);

in a program, I usually don't have to know what nouns/entities it uses to carry out the task. If we coulple them and have:

  nounFoo.doX(...);

then we may be exposing the innards of "doX" by forcing one to think about what nouns are used to carry it out or which the action is attached to.

Sure, some parameters may be nouns, but which noun gets to be King Noun? Rather than arbitrarily promote one, make them *all* parameters.

  noun1.doX(noun2, noun3); // artificial promotion of a noun One

Versus:

  doX(noun1, noun2, noun3); // equal footing

>
> --
> Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com

-T- Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 00:43:05 CEST