Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:26:20 GMT
Message-ID: <wIKfg.16269$A26.376462_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Christian Brunschen wrote:
> In article <lsBfg.3076$%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 Fri Jun 02 2006 - 01:26:20 CEST