OO Design Debate

[Nate]

Scenario:

In a commerce application, there is a Product class. Along with the Product
class there is a form (the text that goes in the labels of the input
controls) for inputting and updating existing instances of existing Product
objects. We'll call the second a ProductForm. Both would be data-driven.

I view these as 2 distinct classes. Product and ProductForm. Where Product
contains the business end and ProductForm contains the presentation end.

My coworker vehemently disagrees with me on this. He believes they should
be in the same class since they deal with one object, the Product. And he
has good arguments.

So, we figure perhaps hearing arguments from outside experts would shed some
light on the subject. Things that we are considering is readability,
maintainability , accessibility, and scalability.

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Saad Rehmani wrote:

I would argue that all O/R mappers achieve the same objective, but
those that provide the most flexibility while maintaining clarity are
(at least) first amongst equals. Even amongst those that are forms
of each other ... :)
Often it's not that simple, but that's not unique to o/r mappers or
data-access solutions in general. There are still people writing
software with toolkits which aren't really toolkits which help them get
more productive (i.e.: cutting down development cost/testing cost
etc.), but only make the developer do things differently, without any
real gain.
I wonder if there's an 'is-a' relationship between DDD / MDD.

they both derive from the abstract supertype Buzzword, so they have a
common ancestor, though I wouldn't call it an is-a relationship as
they're more or less siblings. ;)

But perhaps if you move away from the practical aspects of DDD and far
into hardcore theory-land, you might be able to argue that DDD and MDD
have a lot in common, however in that context I always get a slight
feeling that it's a lot of fuss about hot air, creating a lot of
overhead and consuming a lot of time while producing very little to
move the project forward. (in short: design for the sole purpose of
'doing it through design')

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alfredo Novoa]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:20:06 +0100, "Joanna Carter [TeamB]"
<jo****@not.for .spam> wrote:

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe************ ******@xs4all.n l> a écrit dans le
message de news: xn************* **@news.microso ft.com...

| Well, there is, for years already. It's called comp.object.

Ok, I just took a peek in there and found messages by a certain RDBMS zealot
who takes great delight in ruining any OO discussion by insisting that OO is
utter rubbish and that the whole world can be run with a non-OO RDBMS.
Anyone who disagrees, it seems, is not allow to discuss OO principles :-(
We, in the Borland groups, have already banned this guy for being too
disruptive.

LMAO X-DDD

I like your decision. comp.object does not need more people like you.

[Saad Rehmani]

FB wrote:

Saad Rehmani wrote:

I would argue that all O/R mappers achieve the same objective, but
those that provide the most flexibility while maintaining clarity are
(at least) first amongst equals. Even amongst those that are forms
of each other ... :)
Often it's not that simple, but that's not unique to o/r mappers or
data-access solutions in general. There are still people writing
software with toolkits which aren't really toolkits which help them
get more productive (i.e.: cutting down development cost/testing cost
etc.), but only make the developer do things differently, without any
real gain.

I wonder if there's an 'is-a' relationship between DDD / MDD.

they both derive from the abstract supertype Buzzword, so they have a
common ancestor, though I wouldn't call it an is-a relationship as
they're more or less siblings. ;)

Hmmm .... Buzzword is probably closer to an interface since it obviously
has no implementation ;)

But perhaps if you move away from the practical aspects of DDD and
far into hardcore theory-land, you might be able to argue that DDD and
MDD have a lot in common, however in that context I always get a
slight feeling that it's a lot of fuss about hot air, creating a lot
of overhead and consuming a lot of time while producing very little to
move the project forward. (in short: design for the sole purpose of
'doing it through design')
I think 'keep your design coupled with your code so both can evolve without
leaving the other behind' is probably a nicer way to say that :)

The thing that blows me away with the Generation-XP methodologies is that
all they're really doing is approaching problems from a different perspective.
'Improve your dev velocity / reliability / number of defects etc, etc. just
by thinking of the process of developing software in a different way', is
a pretty darn cool sell.

At the end of the day, most of these methodologies are really best practices
that someone (Eric Evans?) learnt over the course of their career. There's
no harm in learning about them and maybe gaining something from another person's
experience.

Then again, I might just like them because I hate meetings about spiraling
waterfalls :)

FB

--
Saad Rehmani / Prodika / Dallas / TX / USA

[Joanna Carter [TeamB]]

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe************ ******@xs4all.n l> a écrit dans le
message de news: xn************* **@news.microso ft.com...

| > I wonder if there's an 'is-a' relationship between DDD / MDD.
|
| they both derive from the abstract supertype Buzzword, so they have a
| common ancestor, though I wouldn't call it an is-a relationship as
| they're more or less siblings. ;)

Wow man, too many TLAs :-)

Joanna

--
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
Consultant Software Engineer

[Joanna Carter [TeamB]]

"Saad Rehmani" <sa**********@g mail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
44************* *************@m snews.microsoft .com...

| Hmmm .... Buzzword is probably closer to an interface since it obviously
| has no implementation ;)

Heheh :-)

| At the end of the day, most of these methodologies are really best
practices
| that someone (Eric Evans?) learnt over the course of their career. There's
| no harm in learning about them and maybe gaining something from another
person's
| experience.

That's what I found so annoying about UML; it started out as a language for
communicating ideas, then someone turned it into a methodology, which seems
to approach the traditional waterfall with the odd eddy :-)

Joanna

--
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
Consultant Software Engineer