473,839 Members | 1,464 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

php 5 classes: public, protected and private

Hi,

finally giving php 5 a go, and going over the new approach to classes.
Can someone clarify the public, private and protected to me?

I quote the php manual: "The visibility of a property or method can be
defined by prefixing the declaration with the keywords: public,
protected or private. Public declared items can be accessed
everywhere."

But should I read "...can be accessed everywhere within a given class."
or "...can be accessed by all other classes." ?

Job

Nov 27 '06
86 4673

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.de wrote in message
news:u4******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...
.oO(Tony Marston)
>>Just an example: Without
these interfaces it wouldn't be possible to use 'foreach' to iterate
over any arbitrary object:

foreach ($directory as $file) {...}
foreach ($resultSet as $record) {...}

With PHP 5 it is possible to use 'foreach' on an object without the use of
interfaces, so your argument is not valid.

It's a huge difference whether you just loop through all of the object's
properties like an array (that's what you described above) or if each
iteration automatically calls a particular method, which for example
fetches the next record from a database.

The latter is the basis of the SPL extension and not possible without
interfaces. Maybe IYHO the entire extension is not valid as well?

Micha
I have no opinion on the SPL extension as I have never used it. That
argument is irrelevant anyway. The point being debated here is whether
interfaces in PHP are necessary, and it is my opinion that they are NOT.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Dec 2 '06 #41
"Buddy" <bu***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ 73g2000cwn.goog legroups.com...
Python does what LISP does with better syntax. So I would say Python
bets both LISP and PHP and with mod_python (for Apache), maybe you
should learn it.
What has this got to do with the topic being discussed?

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Tony Marston wrote:
>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:n9******* *************** ********@comcas t.com...
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:bp******* *************** ********@comcas t.com...

Tony Marston wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Pe**** *************** ***********@com cast.com...
>Tony Marston wrote:
>
>
>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
>>news:j9** *************** *************@c omcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jerr y Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
>>>>news:Ib *************** *************** @comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jopper depopper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yo u should read "can be accessed everywhere".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Priv ate members can be accessed by members of the class only.
>>>>>>>Prot ected members can be accessed by members of the class or a
>>>>>>>deri ved
>>>>>>>clas s.
>>>>>>>Publ ic members can be accessed by anyone, including other
>>>>>>>clas ses,
>>>>>>>func tions and any other code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank s Jerry. I'm trying to make a bit of sense of the php 5
>>>>>>appro ach
>>>>>>to classes, and so far having a hard time. I fail to see the
>>>>>>'wh y'
>>>>>>behin d the 'public, protected and private' and stuff like
>>>>>>abstr action,
>>>>>>inter faces and whatnot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Intefac es are not necessary in PHP. Once you have defined a
>>>>metho d
>>>>it is a total waste to time to also define an interface.
>>>>Interfa ces
>>>>are a "fix" in those languages as a means of dealing with
>>>>optiona l
>>>>argumen ts and statyic typing. PHP has ifferent ways of dealing
>>>>with
>>>>bth of these, therefore interfaces serve no useful purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, the great Tony Marston is back to trolling again.
>>>
>>>Wrong. In OO terms, the interface is the way to interact with the
>>>object . It consists of all public members - both methods
>>>(functio ns,
>>>in PHP) and variables. And for derived classes, the base class
>>>adds
>>>protecte d members.
>>>
>>>A PHP interface is something entirely different.
>>
>>
>>I disagree. It is possible to define a function (method) within a
>>class,
>>then to define a separate thing called an "interface" . It is
>>possibl e
>>access
>>the function without using the interface, therefore the interface
>>is
>>not
>>necessary .
>>
>
>Tony,
>
>You really need to learn about OO before spouting off. In OO terms,
>an
>interfac e is something entirely different than a PHP interface.
How so? All the documentation I have seen describes how an interface
simply describes a method which it imlements. If it is possible to
access a method (a function in PHP) without going though an
interface ,
ten an interface is not necessary in any language.
You need to understand the difference between an interface as
described
in OO terms and the PHP interface.

The PHP interface defines a set of methods (function) which are
required
by the classes which implement the interface. Java is similar in that
respect. But both are a subset of the total interface.
It is possible to access the method directly without an interface,
therefore an interfae is not necessary.
"Possible" != "CORRECT"

That's just your opinion. Where does it say that I *MUST* define and use
an
interface before I can access a class method? Interfaces are optional
(especuially in PHP) so it is not wrong to excercise the option NOT to
use
them. I can define a class method and access that method without using an
interface, and that is what I choose to do.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

Dec 2 '06 #42
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Wf******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:rN***** *************** **********@comc ast.com...
Tony Marston wrote:

< snip>

>>>>Tony and I have been into this before. He breaks into conversations
>>>>tryin g to spout his version of OO, with a few blogs from people no
>>>>one every heard of to back him up.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see. So in your opinion Martin Fowler is of of these "people no one
>>>ever heard of "? He says, like I do, that "Encapsulat ion Wasn't Meant
>>>To Mean Data Hiding" at
>>>http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/
>>>
>>>Are you saying that YOU are more of an expert than Martin Fowler? What
>>>arroganc e!
>>>
>>
>>No, I'm saying Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, among others, are more
>>expert than Martin Fowler. And yes, I've heard of him.
>>
>>But you're not quoting Martin Fowler. You're quoting Keith Ray's
>>INTERPRET ATION if Martin Fowler.
>
>
>If you bothered to follow the link to Martn Fowler's page at
>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/GetterEradicator.html you would see in
>paragrap h 4 tha it is a direct quotation, not an interpretation.
>

Yes, and did you actually read that page? To quote from Martin Fowler:

"For me, the point of encapsulation isn't really about hiding the data,
but in hiding design decisions, particularly in areas where those
decisions may have to change. The internal data representation is one
example of this..."
The full quote is "The internal data representation is one example of
this, ** but not the only one and not always the best one.**" The
significan t point is the sentence which reads "point of encapsulation
isn't really about hiding the data, but in hiding design decisions". If
you follow the link he provides to
http://www.craiglarman.com/articles/...20Software.pdf
by Craig Larman there is an interesting chapter with the title
"Informati on hiding is PV, not data encapsulation". The hiding of design
decisions was supposed to mean hiding the code which manipulates the
data, not the data itself.

As I have said several times, and quoted from other resources,
encapsulatio n is NOT about INFORMATION hiding but about IMPLEMENTATION
hiding. There is a subtle difference which you fail to grasp.

No, the point YOU fail to grasp, which ALL the experts, including Martin
Fowler, is the actual variables used are PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.

I never said you should hide the information. But you should hide HOW THE
INFORMATION IS STORED. That is one of the DESIGN DECISIONS he is talking
about.


I suggest you learn to read. The article by Craig Larman clearly states "In
it, Parnas introduces information hiding. Many people have misinterpretted
this term as meaning data encapsulation, and some books erroneously define
the concepts as synonyms"
Do you see? "Encapsulat ion" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation".
Yes, I suggest you learn to read, Tony. Start with the real experts.

You're just a stupid troll who looks around for someone to support his
position. Read the authors I recommended.

And no, I don't need to read any more of your "experts". I've read
enough to see that you really don't understand what they're talking about.
>
>>This is something on which EVERY expert agrees. But you fail to
understand.


Not EVERY export. Some agree, some don't..
OK, every RECOGNIZED expert. That does not include the "experts" trolls
like you recognize. Nor anyone who posts an essay or blog on the web.
>
>>And the same thing with Craig Larman's article. He agrees that
encapsulati on is good because it hides the design details. No one ever
claimed it hid information.

Wrong on both counts, Tony the Troll. Learn to read.


"Encapsulat ion" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation". It is supposed
to hide the implemetation (code), not the information (data).
Encapsulation includes bot DATA AND CODE. How information is stored is
part of the implementation, also. But that's what you can't get through
your thick skull.

Maybe if you stood up and took a load off of your brain you could think
more clearly. I'd suggest you take a shit but I'm afraid you'd loose
what ever brains you might have.
>
>>>>This is in perfect agreement with Booch, Rumbaugh, Iverson and others.
And a direct CONTRADICTION to troll Tony Marston.

>>>>It's not worth getting into the argument. He's just a troll with
>>>>delusio ns of competency.
>>>
>>>
>>>If everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent then the world is
>>>full of idiots. Your opinion is not the only opinion, and there are
>>>plenty of "experts" who have opposing views.
>>>
>>
>>No, I disagree with a lot of competent people. It's YOU who are an
>>incompete nt troll. And you continue to prove it.


I see. I agree with some of the people that you disagree with, yet that
makes me a troll.
No, you're a troll because you come into a tread and start arguing your
case. You refuse to read industry-recognized experts, but quote blogs
by people who agree with you.

And even when you post a page of someone who agrees with me and I point
it out, you refute it and change the subject - finding another unknown
"expert" to support your claim.

Also, I challenge you to find even ONE college level OO course in the
U.S. which agrees with you. I bet you can't. So I guess all those
professors are wrong, also.

You are a troll because you have absolutely no idea of which you talk.
You have no real experience outside of your little bubble, yet claim you
are an expert. You would never last in a corporate programming
environment - or any other serious programming group.

IOW, you're a total idiot, and proving it every day.
>
>>>>>>Try these - with direct quotes from recognized experts, and examples:
>>
>>http://www.research.umbc.edu/~tarr/d...ciples-2pp.pdf
>>http://www.nnwj.de/encapsulation.html
>>
>>Or better yet, read the real books by these authors.
>>
>>But I know you won't, because you disagree with what they say, and
>>don't want to burst your little bubble.
>>
>>Troll.
>
>
>Whether you like it or not there is no such thing as a single opinion as
>to what OOP is and is not, and there are multiple interpretations as to
>the real meaning of encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism,
>implementa tion hiding and information hiding. Just because you quote
>sources who agree with you does not mean you are right and everybody
>else is wrong. Here are sources with the opinion that "Encapsulat ion is
>NOT information hiding":
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/
>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/GetterEradicator.html
>http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...on.html?page=1
>http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
>http://nat.truemesh.com/archives/000498.html
>
>The world is full of different opinions, so who is to say which ones are
>right and which ones are wrong?
>

Yea, and some, like yours, troll, are just wrong.
In your opinion they are wrong, but I do not value your opinion.

I really don't give a flying fuck if you or any other troll values my
opinion, Tony. Your idiocy is beyond comprehension.
>>>>Read the experts I've mentioned several times. You might actually learn
something .

But I know you won't. Like all trolls you know everything and anyone who
disagrees with you is wrong - no matter how much of a recognized expert
he is.
All the "experts" in the world do not agree. "My" experts disagree with
"your" experts. Just because I, and many others, disagree with your
opinion does not make me/us wrong.

Where did your "experts" get their training? The great Tony Martson
School of Bullshit?

These are experts recognized by the INDUSTRY - not me, not Tony Marston.
They are recognized by top programmers, university professors, industry
groups, publishers and more.

And quite frankly, troll Tony Marston's opinion on who an expert is isn't
important.


Neither is yours.
No, but my opinion is supported by Jacobson, Booch and Rumbaugh, among
other industry-recognized experts. Yours is only supported by bloggers
who, like you, are trying in vain to get noticed in this world.

And you won't even read the industry experts. Your mantra is:

"I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts".

>
>>>>Go and crawl back into your hole, troll. And take your delusions of
competenc e with you.
Typical reaction of a moron. When you start losing the argument out come
the insults.

Yep, you've labeled yourself for sure. I am not "losing the argument".
Rather, you are just too thick-headed and stubborn to listen to the real
experts in the field.


As I keep on saying, there is no such thing as one set of experts with whom
EVERYBODY agrees, just as there is no such thing as one programming style
with which EVEYBODY agrees.In every walk of life there are different
opinions, and all I am doing is expressing an opinion which isdifferent from
yours.

>>You've done a little programming in one (or maybe even two) languages.


I have done a lot of programming in many languages.
ROFLMAO! Basic? Javascript?
>
>>You think reading some of the crap on the Internet makes you an expert in
the matter.


Just as the crap you read makes you an expert.
Yea, Booch, Jacobson and Rumbaugh are "crap". That shows just how much
of a stupid troll you are, Tony.
>
>>Let me clue you in, Tony. You are far from an expert in anything. A web
site with some copied (and incorrect)


It is only your opinion that it is incorect. Other people do not think so.
It's the opinion of a lot of people on this newsgroup, Tony. You've
made a complete ass of yourself too many times.
>
>>information does not make you an expert. Posting your bullshit in this
and other newsgroups does not make you an expert.


Posting your bullsh*t does not make you an expert either.
The difference is my "bullshit" is supported by industry-recognized
techniques. Yours is only supported by unknown people who are trying to
get their names out.
>
>And quoting people no one ever heard of does not make you an expert.


Just because you haven't heard of them does no mean that they do not exist,
nor hat their opinions are worthless.
And it also doesn't mean they have any credibility. As a reference,
their opinions are worthless.
>
>>Try working on an OO project with 100 programmers. Learn how to do
proper OO.


I once worked on a project with a team of so-called OO "experts", and it was
the worst technical disaster of my entire career. They were so full of their
fancy ideas they coud not tell which way was up. They were so incompetent
they could not find their own backsides in the dark if you let them use both
hands and gave them a map and compass.
Right. And the great Tony Marston was the only competent programmer
there. Are you familiar with the term "megalomani ac"? Looks like we
need to add that to your description, also.
>
>Then spend another 5-10 years or so working your way up in the OOAD
field, until you're managing projects like the one above. Then your
opinions might count. I've done all of that over the years.

Or even read the books I mentioned by those authors.

But I know you won't. Like all trolls, you're just plain stupid, and are
totally afraid the bullshit you've been espousing might be wrong.

Go away, troll.


No, I won't. I will keep contradicting your opinions until hell freezes over
for the simple reason that I, and others, do not agree with your opinions.
And you'll keep making a complete ass of yourself, Tony. Almost
everyone here is laughing at you and your pitiful attempts to show how
little you know.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===
Dec 2 '06 #43
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:kv******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Du***** *************** **********@comc ast.com...
< snip>

>>>>The PHP interface defines a set of methods (function) which are
>>>>require d by the classes which implement the interface. Java is
>>>>simil ar in that respect. But both are a subset of the total
>>>>interfa ce.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is possible to access the method directly without an interface,
>>>therefor e an interfae is not necessary.
>>>
>>
>>"Possible " != "CORRECT"
>
>
>That's just your opinion. Where does it say that I *MUST* define and use
>an interface before I can access a class method? Interfaces are optional
>(especuial ly in PHP) so it is not wrong to excercise the option NOT to
>use them. I can define a class method and access that method without
>using an interface, and that is what I choose to do.
>

When are you going to get it through that pea-sized mind of yours that a
PHP interface is not the same as an interface as defined in OO terms?

In OO terms, a public method is part of the interface. The PHP keyword
interface just defines a set of functions which must be implemented by
the class.

They are two entirely different things.
The fact that a method and an interface are different things is
irrelevant . I am just pointing out that in PHP an interface is not
necessary as I can access the method directly without going through an
interface. Is this statement true or false?

No, the fact that they are different are VERY RELEVANT. The fact you
can't understand the difference is also VERY RELEVANT. Or is it just that
you disregard facts which don't support with your stupidness?

Losing the argument so you need to disregard the facts? Typical troll
behavior.

Whether or not a PHP interface is required is immaterial - we are talking
about the OO concept of an interface, not PHP interfaces.

But that's way too deep for you to understand - the same word having
different meanings in different contexts? Hope your head didn't explode.


This is a PHP newsgroup, so I am explaining how interfaces work within PHP.
It is a simple fact that interfaces ARE NOT NECESSARY in PHP. The fact that
interfaces are treated differently in other languages is totally irrelevant.
The fact that YOU think that interfaces in PHP should behave exactly the
same as in other languages is also irrelevant.
The subject of interfaces came up in the OO context, not a PHP interface.

However, you're too stupid to understand there's a difference between
the two. So you keep trying to change the subject then justifying your
change - just like any troll.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===
Dec 2 '06 #44
That's just your opinion. Where does it say that I *MUST* define and use an
interface before I can access a class method? Interfaces are optional
(especuially in PHP) so it is not wrong to excercise the option NOT to use
them. I can define a class method and access that method without using an
interface, and that is what I choose to do.
No one is saying that you have to use interfaces. The point is that it
is there to help in organizing and creating classes, the same goes for
visibility keywords. Just because you don't have to use these, doesn't
mean that you should not use them.

I can see an advantage in using interfaces and/or visibility keywords
in PHP, if one is creating a large library, or to help communications
between a team of developers. These features can help track down where
a problem is if something isn't working right, or just for clarifying
the particular usage for the class or its members.

BTW, I do not believe there is any controversy over what encapsulation
is; if so, I haven't heard about it.

Dec 3 '06 #45

"Curtis" <dy****@gmail.c omwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ 80g2000cwy.goog legroups.com...
>That's just your opinion. Where does it say that I *MUST* define and use
an
interface before I can access a class method? Interfaces are optional
(especuially in PHP) so it is not wrong to excercise the option NOT to
use
them. I can define a class method and access that method without using an
interface, and that is what I choose to do.

No one is saying that you have to use interfaces.
Exactly. All I am saying is that interfaces are not necessary, just as the
use on private/protected is not necessary. Others keep arguning the
opposite.
The point is that it
is there to help in organizing and creating classes, the same goes for
visibility keywords. Just because you don't have to use these, doesn't
mean that you should not use them.

I can see an advantage in using interfaces and/or visibility keywords
in PHP, if one is creating a large library, or to help communications
between a team of developers. These features can help track down where
a problem is if something isn't working right, or just for clarifying
the particular usage for the class or its members.

BTW, I do not believe there is any controversy over what encapsulation
is; if so, I haven't heard about it.
To some people encapsulation means "implementa tion hiding" while to others
it means "informatio n hiding". This is discussed in the following documents:
http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...psulation.html

There is no single view as to what OOP actually IS or IS NOT. People cannot
agree on what the basic terminology means, which leads to greater arguments
on how it should be implemented.

There are some people in this newsgroup who do not like views which differ
from their own. They consider their way to be the RIGHT way, the ONLY way,
just like religious fanatics. All I am trying to do is point out that there
is no single truth, no single point of view.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org


Dec 3 '06 #46

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:4q******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
Tony Marston wrote:
<snip>
>I suggest you learn to read. The article by Craig Larman clearly states
"In it, Parnas introduces information hiding. Many people have
misinterprette d this term as meaning data encapsulation, and some books
erroneously define the concepts as synonyms"
Do you see? "Encapsulat ion" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation".

Yes, I suggest you learn to read, Tony. Start with the real experts.

You're just a stupid troll who looks around for someone to support his
position. Read the authors I recommended.

And no, I don't need to read any more of your "experts". I've read enough
to see that you really don't understand what they're talking about.
>>
>>>This is something on which EVERY expert agrees. But you fail to
understand .


Not EVERY export. Some agree, some don't..

OK, every RECOGNIZED expert. That does not include the "experts" trolls
like you recognize. Nor anyone who posts an essay or blog on the web.
Oh I see. Someone is not an expert unless you personally give them your seal
of approval. That is NOT how it works.
>>>And the same thing with Craig Larman's article. He agrees that
encapsulatio n is good because it hides the design details. No one ever
claimed it hid information.

Wrong on both counts, Tony the Troll. Learn to read.
I suggest YOU learn to read. Encapsulation is NOT the same as data hiding.
>"Encapsulation " is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation". It is
supposed to hide the implemetation (code), not the information (data).

Encapsulation includes bot DATA AND CODE. How information is stored is
part of the implementation, also. But that's what you can't get through
your thick skull.
Encapsulation means "implementa tion hiding" not "informatio n hiding". I do
not need private/protected variables to implement encapsulation.
Maybe if you stood up and took a load off of your brain you could think
more clearly. I'd suggest you take a shit but I'm afraid you'd loose what
ever brains you might have.
>>
>>>>>This is in perfect agreement with Booch, Rumbaugh, Iverson and others.
>And a direct CONTRADICTION to troll Tony Marston.
And other experts, such as Martin Fowler.
>>>>>>>>>It's not worth getting into the argument. He's just a troll with
>>>>>delusi ons of competency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent then the world is
>>>>full of idiots. Your opinion is not the only opinion, and there are
>>>>plent y of "experts" who have opposing views.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, I disagree with a lot of competent people. It's YOU who are an
>>>incompet ent troll. And you continue to prove it.


I see. I agree with some of the people that you disagree with, yet that
makes me a troll.

No, you're a troll because you come into a tread and start arguing your
case.
That is what newsgroups are for, to expose different points of view.
You refuse to read industry-recognized experts, but quote blogs by people
who agree with you.
I read from a different set of experts, as do many others.
And even when you post a page of someone who agrees with me and I point it
out, you refute it and change the subject - finding another unknown
"expert" to support your claim.
So you agree that there are others out there, expert or not, who share MY
opinion and which contradicts YOUR opinion.
Also, I challenge you to find even ONE college level OO course in the U.S.
which agrees with you. I bet you can't. So I guess all those professors
are wrong, also.
If they are teaching that there is only one way to interpret what OO means,
and only one way to implement that interpretation, then they ARE wrong. Just
like those religious fanatics who preach that theirs is the ONE and ONLY
"true" faith.
You are a troll because you have absolutely no idea of which you talk.
I have an open mind. I am prepared to listen to all arguments before I
decide which path to follow. And I choose NOT to follow your particular
path.
You have no real experience outside of your little bubble, yet claim you
are an expert.
I have never claimed to be an expert, unlike YOU. All I have done is pointed
out that other experts have opinions which differ from yours.

< snip>
And you won't even read the industry experts. Your mantra is:
"I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts".
That's funny. I thought that was YOUR mantra.

<snip>
The difference is my "bullshit" is supported by industry-recognized
techniques. Yours is only supported by unknown people who are trying to
get their names out.
So Martin Fowler is not a recognised expert?

< snip>
>>>Try working on an OO project with 100 programmers. Learn how to do
proper OO.
That's the problem. Different people have a totally different idea as to
what "proper OO" actually is. You are the arrogant one who keeps insisting
that YOUR opinion is the ONLY opinion worth having.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Dec 3 '06 #47

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:4q******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
Tony Marston wrote:
<snip>
>This is a PHP newsgroup, so I am explaining how interfaces work within
PHP. It is a simple fact that interfaces ARE NOT NECESSARY in PHP. The
fact that interfaces are treated differently in other languages is
totally irrelevant. The fact that YOU think that interfaces in PHP should
behave exactly the same as in other languages is also irrelevant.

The subject of interfaces came up in the OO context, not a PHP interface.

However, you're too stupid to understand there's a difference between the
two. So you keep trying to change the subject then justifying your
change - just like any troll.
This is a PHP newsgroup. All my arguments concern PHP. I do not care that
other languages have different implementations because that is totally
irrelevant. The simple fact is that in PHP it is not necessary to use
interfaces.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

Dec 3 '06 #48
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:4q******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
>>Tony Marston wrote:

<snip>
>>>I suggest you learn to read. The article by Craig Larman clearly states
"In it, Parnas introduces information hiding. Many people have
misinterpret ted this term as meaning data encapsulation, and some books
erroneousl y define the concepts as synonyms"
Do you see? "Encapsulat ion" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation".

Yes, I suggest you learn to read, Tony. Start with the real experts.

You're just a stupid troll who looks around for someone to support his
position. Read the authors I recommended.

And no, I don't need to read any more of your "experts". I've read enough
to see that you really don't understand what they're talking about.

>>>
This is something on which EVERY expert agrees. But you fail to
understan d.
Not EVERY export. Some agree, some don't..

OK, every RECOGNIZED expert. That does not include the "experts" trolls
like you recognize. Nor anyone who posts an essay or blog on the web.


Oh I see. Someone is not an expert unless you personally give them your seal
of approval. That is NOT how it works.
That's hilarious. You think you're an expert because you one time
worked on one failed OO project. Try working on a few dozen successful
ones. Then maybe you'll learn someone.

And these are experts recognized by the INDUSTRY. People who have been
doing OOAD for years. University Professors. Industry giants. And so on.

But you think anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know anything.
You are beyond stupid, Tony. And people laugh at you.
>
>>>>And the same thing with Craig Larman's article. He agrees that
encapsulati on is good because it hides the design details. No one ever
claimed it hid information.

Wrong on both counts, Tony the Troll. Learn to read.


I suggest YOU learn to read. Encapsulation is NOT the same as data hiding.
And I suggest you learn to read. I never said encapsulation had
anything do to with data hiding. But you're too stoopid to understand
that, either.
>
>>>"Encapsulati on" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation". It is
supposed to hide the implemetation (code), not the information (data).

Encapsulati on includes bot DATA AND CODE. How information is stored is
part of the implementation, also. But that's what you can't get through
your thick skull.


Encapsulation means "implementa tion hiding" not "informatio n hiding". I do
not need private/protected variables to implement encapsulation.
Exactly. And how data is stored is part of the implementation. But
again, you're too stoopid to understand that part.
>
>>Maybe if you stood up and took a load off of your brain you could think
more clearly. I'd suggest you take a shit but I'm afraid you'd loose what
ever brains you might have.

>>>>>>This is in perfect agreement with Booch, Rumbaugh, Iverson and others.
>>And a direct CONTRADICTION to troll Tony Marston.


And other experts, such as Martin Fowler.
And no, your beloved Martin Fowler is not a widely recognized expert.
Not like Booch, Rumbaugh and Iverson, for three. But even so, Martin
Fowler agrees with the other three experts. But you're too stoopid to
understand that, either.
>
>>>>>>>>>>It' s not worth getting into the argument. He's just a troll with
>>>>>>delus ions of competency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent then the world is
>>>>>full of idiots. Your opinion is not the only opinion, and there are
>>>>>plen ty of "experts" who have opposing views.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, I disagree with a lot of competent people. It's YOU who are an
>>>>incompe tent troll. And you continue to prove it.
I see. I agree with some of the people that you disagree with, yet that
makes me a troll.

No, you're a troll because you come into a tread and start arguing your
case.


That is what newsgroups are for, to expose different points of view.
Yea, but the problem is you can't keep people like Tony Marston with
shit for brains out, either. But that's ok, there are a lot of people
getting a big laugh at you.

Imaging - calling yourself an "expert" when you've only worked on one
project - which failed. ROFLMAO!
>
>You refuse to read industry-recognized experts, but quote blogs by people
who agree with you.


I read from a different set of experts, as do many others.
And your "experts" are not recognized by the industry. They're just
like you - poor wanna-be's with a web site and delusions of competence.
People who are so desperate for attention they'll post any bullshit
they can find, just to get attention.
>
>>And even when you post a page of someone who agrees with me and I point it
out, you refute it and change the subject - finding another unknown
"expert" to support your claim.


So you agree that there are others out there, expert or not, who share MY
opinion and which contradicts YOUR opinion.
Sure, there are people who don't understand OO, encapsulation and the
rest. In fact, I'll bet bet Hillary Clinton would agree with you. And
she's even famous!
>
>>Also, I challenge you to find even ONE college level OO course in the U.S.
which agrees with you. I bet you can't. So I guess all those professors
are wrong, also.


If they are teaching that there is only one way to interpret what OO means,
and only one way to implement that interpretation, then they ARE wrong. Just
like those religious fanatics who preach that theirs is the ONE and ONLY
"true" faith.
So now you're saying even all the colleges and universities in this
country are wrong, also, because they don't agree with Tony Marston?

ROFLMAO!
>
>>You are a troll because you have absolutely no idea of which you talk.


I have an open mind. I am prepared to listen to all arguments before I
decide which path to follow. And I choose NOT to follow your particular
path.
That is the best line you've come up with yet, Tony!

No, you don't have an open mind. Your mind is fixated on how YOU think
things should be, and the rest of the world should conform to YOUR
ideas. And anyone who disagrees with you is wrong - including all
colleges, universities, industry-recognized experts...

That is not an open mind, Tony. That's a sign of megalomania. And
you're a troll, on top of it.
>
>>You have no real experience outside of your little bubble, yet claim you
are an expert.


I have never claimed to be an expert, unlike YOU. All I have done is pointed
out that other experts have opinions which differ from yours.
You have posted no "experts" who's opinions differ from mine. All
you've posted are blogs and other website entries by people no one else
knows.
< snip>
>>And you won't even read the industry experts. Your mantra is:
"I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts".


That's funny. I thought that was YOUR mantra.
Nope, the facts I have are from recognized experts. You have no real
experience in OO, you have not read industry experts, you haven't even
taken a college course on OOAD. And yet you think everyone else is wrong.
<snip>
>>The difference is my "bullshit" is supported by industry-recognized
techniques. Yours is only supported by unknown people who are trying to
get their names out.


So Martin Fowler is not a recognised expert?
Not as widely recognized as Booch, Rumbaugh and Iverson, amongst others.
And even so, if you really read what he says, he does agree with the
three above.
< snip>
>>>>Try working on an OO project with 100 programmers. Learn how to do
proper OO.


That's the problem. Different people have a totally different idea as to
what "proper OO" actually is. You are the arrogant one who keeps insisting
that YOUR opinion is the ONLY opinion worth having.
Yes, you are arrogant, Tony. And I can see why they fired your ass from
the project.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===
Dec 3 '06 #49
Tony Marston wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:4q******** *************** *******@comcast .com...
>>Tony Marston wrote:


<snip>
>>>This is a PHP newsgroup, so I am explaining how interfaces work within
PHP. It is a simple fact that interfaces ARE NOT NECESSARY in PHP. The
fact that interfaces are treated differently in other languages is
totally irrelevant. The fact that YOU think that interfaces in PHP should
behave exactly the same as in other languages is also irrelevant.

The subject of interfaces came up in the OO context, not a PHP interface.

However, you're too stupid to understand there's a difference between the
two. So you keep trying to change the subject then justifying your
change - just like any troll.


This is a PHP newsgroup. All my arguments concern PHP. I do not care that
other languages have different implementations because that is totally
irrelevant. The simple fact is that in PHP it is not necessary to use
interfaces.
This discussion has to do with interfaces in the OO context. They are
not the same as PHP interfaces.

But you're too stoopid to understand the difference, so like a troll you
try to change the subject.

Go away, troll.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===
Dec 3 '06 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

7
1812
by: verbatime | last post by:
Please explain me how this works - or should work: Got my two classes - bcBasic (baseclass) and the derived cBasic. //--------------------------------------- class bcBasic { int number; virtual long myfunc(void); }
45
3637
by: Steven T. Hatton | last post by:
This is a purely *hypothetical* question. That means, it's /pretend/, CP. ;-) If you were forced at gunpoint to put all your code in classes, rather than in namespace scope (obviously classes themselves are an exception to this), and 'bootstrap' your program by instantiating a single application object in main(), would that place any limitations on what you could accomplish with your program? Are there any benefits to doing things that...
3
2068
by: Bryan Parkoff | last post by:
I have C++ Primer Third Edition -- Author Stanley B. Lippman and Josee Lajoie. I have been studying it for couple months however it does not provide a valuable information which it is about "friend to class". I am very disappointed because it is the way how C++ Compiler is designed. I assume that "friend to class" is not the good option. If CMain class is initialized before CA class, CB class, and CC class are initialized inside CMain...
14
3811
by: Pratts | last post by:
I am a new one who have joined u plz try to help me bcoz i could not find ny sutiable answer foer this Question Qus>>why do we need classes when structures provide similar functionality??
6
3369
by: steve bull | last post by:
I created a usercontrol class, RGBColorSpace, which is derived from an abstract class, ColorSpace, but when I try to click on the design panel for the control I get an error message "Unable to create instance of abstract class ColorSpace". I never try to create a class ColorSpace and don't really want to create a regular class with virtual methods. Does anyone know why I am having this problem? The code seems to run fine and I can actually...
11
3855
by: Kevin Prichard | last post by:
Hi all, I've recently been following the object-oriented techiques discussed here and have been testing them for use in a web application. There is problem that I'd like to discuss with you experts. I would like to produce Javascript classes that can be "subclassed" with certain behaviors defined at subclass time. There are plenty of ways to do this through prototyping and other techniques, but these behaviors need to be static and...
5
2011
by: Chris Szabo | last post by:
Good afternoon everyone. I'm running into a problem deserializing a stream using the XmlSerializer. A stored procedure returns the following from SQL Server: <Student StudentId="1" Status="1" Gpa="3.50"> <Person Id="1" FirstName="FirstName0" LastName="LastName0" MiddleInitial="W"/> </Student> In my code, person is the base class and student extends it. When I
2
2376
by: miked | last post by:
I am architecting in a read only class for use in mapping data to a business object. The object makes strong use of nested classes and their ability to access protected fields. The downside is when a nested class inherits from it’s parent class you get this infinite class chain in intellisense when consuming the class. To get around this I created two child classes Reader and Writer which require a base Person object. When consuming...
47
4051
by: Larry Smith | last post by:
I just read a blurb in MSDN under the C++ "ref" keyword which states that: "Under the CLR object model, only public single inheritance is supported". Does this mean that no .NET class can ever support multiple inheritance. In C++ for instance I noticed that the compiler flags an error if you use the "ref" keyword on a class with multiple base classes. This supports the above quote. However, under the "CodeClass2.Bases" property (part...
0
9696
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10903
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10584
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
9425
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7827
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
5681
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
5865
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4482
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
3
3131
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.